Delhi High Court Weekly Round Up: June 27 - July 3, 2022

NOMINAL INDEX Citations 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 594 TO 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 598 ASLAM SHER KHAN v. NARINDER DHRUV BATRA & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 594 VOLTAS LIMITED v. ASHOK KUMAR & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 595 SEHNAZ v. STATE 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 596 PANKAJ JAIN v. PARUL JAIN 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 597 Pink City Expressway Private Limited versus National Highways Authority of India & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 598 1. 'Purity In Functioning Important': Delhi High Court Restrains Narinder Batra From Discharging Functions As President Of Indian Olympic Association Case Title: ASLAM SHER KHAN v. NARINDER DHRUV BATRA & ORS. Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 594 The Delhi High Court has restrained Narinder Dhruv Batra from discharging functions as President of Indian Olympic Association. A vacation bench comprising of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma added that the Senior Vice President will take over the duties and responsibilities of the President and shall also perform any other tasks or functions as directed by the President, the Executive Council or the General Meeting. "This Court considers that the functioning of Sports Federation should be above any kind of doubt. The purity in the functioning of such federations are much more important, than the individual who hold the positions," the Court observed. 2. Delhi High Court Orders Suspension Of Domain Name, Blocking Of Website 'My Voltas Care' In Trademark Infringement Suit By 'Voltas' Case Title: VOLTAS LIMITED v. ASHOK KUMAR & ORS. Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 595 The Delhi High Court has ordered suspension of the domain name as well as blocking access to the website www.myvoltascare.com in a trademark infringement suit filed by home appliance company- Voltas. A vacation bench comprising of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma restrained owner of the website from using the registered and well-known trademark VOLTAS and its logo including the Website or listings on social media websites or e-commerce sites. The Court was dealing with a suit filed by Voltas Limited seeking permanent injunction restraining one Ashok Kumar from infringing its registered trademark through the website www.myvoltascare.com. 3. "Every Day Of Freedom Matters": Delhi High Court Modifies Condition For Suspension Of Sentence To Personal Bond For Convict Unable To Furnish Surety Case Title: SEHNAZ v. STATE Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 596 Granting relief to a woman convict, the Delhi High Court recently modified a suspension of sentence condition for deposit of surety bond to deposit of a personal bond instead, on account of her being unable to furnish the surety. Observing that every day of freedom matters, Justice Jasmeet Singh was of the view that the accused cannot be made to stay in jail for the reason that she could not furnish surety. 4. 'May Cause Mental Trauma': Delhi High Court Refuses To Interfere With Child's 9 Days' Custody To Mother For Foreign Travel Case Title: PANKAJ JAIN v. PARUL JAIN Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 597 The Delhi High Court has observed that in matters relating to custody of children, Court has to give paramount consideration to the welfare of the children. A vacation bench comprising of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma was dealing with a plea challenging an order dated June 8, 2022 passed by the Family Court whereby the Court permitted the mother to take the child to Malaysia for a period of nine days. The Family Court had added that the mother shall bring back the child to Delhi positively on July 3 for her to attend the school which would reopen after summer vacations. The had Court also directed both the mother and father to strictly adhere to the custody and visitation schedule in terms of its earlier judicial orders. 5. Power Under Section 9 Of The A&C Act Cannot Be Exercised For Directing Specific Performance Of The Contract: Reiterates Delhi High Court Case Title: Pink City Expressway Private Limited versus National Highways Authority of India & Anr. Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 598 The Delhi High Court has reiterated that power under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) cannot be exercised for directing specific performance of the contract itself. The Division Bench of Justices Jyoti Singh and Anoop Kumar Mendiratta held that a direction to the opposite party to extend the contract for a further period would amount to granting specific relief of the contract, which is beyond the scope of the powers of the Court under Section 9 of the A&C Act. The Court ruled that power under Section 9 can only be exercised for preservation of the subject matter of the dispute till the decision of the Arbitral Tribunal. IMPORTANT WEEKLY UPDATES 1. Delhi High Court Issues Notice On Muslim Woman's Plea Challenging Constitutional Validity Of Talaq-E-Hasan The Delhi High Court has recently issued notice on a plea ...

Delhi High Court Weekly Round Up: June 27 - July 3, 2022

Nupur Thapliyal

Tags