Delhi High Court Weekly Round-Up: November 28 To December 4, 2022

Citations [2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1125 TO 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1144]

NOMINAL INDEX

Ravinder Kumar Aggarwal versus Income Tax Officer 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1125

PARLE PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED vs BRITANNIA INDUSTRIES LTD 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1126

RK vs State 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1127

DELHI WAQF BOARD THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN vs GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1128

MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS vs ASMITA SACHIN WAMAN 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1129

Sporta Technologies Pvt. Ltd. and Another v. Virat Saxena 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1130

NEETU SINGH vs TELEGRAM FZ LLC 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1131

ITC LIMITED vs CENTRAL PARK ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1132

SHISHRAM AS GUARDIAN OF MR. KAWAL vs BAL BHAVAN INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1133

Javed vs State NCT Of Delhi 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1134

SOCIAL JURIST, A CIVIL RIGHTS GROUP v. KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1135

JUSTICE FOR ALL v. HONBLE LG OF DELHI AND ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1136

Web Overseas Limited versus Universal Industrial Plants Manufacturing Company Private Limited 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1137

INSOLVENCY AND BANKRUPTCY BOARD OF INDIA v. STATE BANK OF INDIA & ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1138

SWISS BIKE VERTRJEBS GMBH SUBSIDIARY OF ACCELL GROUP v. IMPERIAL CYCLE MEG. CO. (PARTNERSHIP FIRM) & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1139

ADOBE, INC v. NAMASE PATEL AND OTHERS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1140

RAMESH KAUSHIK v. STATE OF DELHI 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1141

R.K. Overseas Versus Senior Intelligence Officer, DRI 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1142

Rahul Jain v. Atul Jain, ARB. P. 539 of 2017 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1143

LIVING MEDIA INDIA LIMITED & ANR. versus TELEGRAM FZ LLC & ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1144

1. Notice Under Section 148 Of Income Tax Act Against A Struck-Off Company Valid, In View Of Subsequent Order Of NCLT Restoring The Company: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Ravinder Kumar Aggarwal versus Income Tax Officer

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1125

The Delhi High Court has ruled that the order passed by NCLT under Section 252(3) of the Companies Act, 2013, directing restoration of a struck off company, will have the effect of placing the company in the same position as if the name of the company had not been struck off from the register of companies. Thus, the Court held that the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 issued against a Company on the date it stood dissolved as a consequence of being struck off, was valid in view of the subsequent order passed by the NCLT.

The bench of Justices Manmohan and Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora noted that the continuing liability of a struck-off Company envisaged under Section 250, is in addition to Section 248(7) of the Companies Act, which provides that the liability of every director or manager of a company dissolved as a result of being struck off, shall continue and may be enforced as if the company had not been dissolved.

2. Ad Wars: Delhi High Court Sends Parle, Britannia To Mediation, Restrains Re-Publishing Of Print Adverts Against Parle-G

Title: PARLE PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED vs BRITANNIA INDUSTRIES LTD

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1126

The Delhi High Court has referred Parle Products Private Limited and Britannia Industries to its Mediation and Conciliation Centre for resolution of the dispute over alleged disparaging advertisements of Britannia Milk Bikis against Parle-G biscuits.

Justice Prathiba M. Singh directed that while the settlement is explored between the parties, the two print advertisements of Britannia shall not be re-published.

The court said a perusal of the two print advertisements clearly shows that the use of the terms such as 'G-NAHI', 'Adhura poshan' clearly make a reference to Parle-G biscuits.

3. 18 Years After Murder Conviction, Delhi High Court Sets Aside Life Sentence As Ossification Test Reveals Convict Was Minor On Date Of Incident

Title: RK vs State

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1127

In a case dating back to 1999, the Delhi High Court has set aside the life sentence of a murder convict after he took the plea of juvenility during the pendency of his appeal. The ossification test revealed that his age was between 10 to 20 years old on the day of incident.

"Considering the fact that the upper age limit cannot be taken to the detriment of the appellant and as per the lower limit, the appellant was a minor at the time of alleged incident, he is entitled to the benefit of juvenility. The appellant was convicted for offences punishable under Sections 302/452 IPC as noted above. Maintaining the conviction of the appellant for the said offences, which is not being challenged on merits before this Court, the order on sentence is set aside," said the court.

4. Delhi High Court Directs Delhi Police To Handover Keys Of Markaz Nizamuddin To Maulana Saad

Title: DELHI WAQF BOARD THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN vs GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1128

Rejecting Delhi Police's stand regarding the continuing restrictions at Tablighi Jamaat headquarter in Nizamuddin since March 2020, the Delhi High Court on Monday asked the police to handover the keys of Markaz Nizamuddin to Maulana Saad.

In March this year, the court had permitted holding of prayers on five floors of the mosque during the month of Ramzan. In May, the high court permitted the mosque management to allow public entry beyond the month of Ramzan, for the first time since March 2020. The relief was limited to offering of prayers. However, the attached madrasa and hostel continued to remain closed.

Justice Jasmeet Singh on Monday said that the keys would have to be handed over to the person from whom they were taken. "You have taken the possession from some person. You return the possession to that person. I am not adjudicating an FIR for title of property, that is not issue before me," said the court.

5. RTI Act: Delhi High Court Quashes CIC Order Asking MEA To Disclose Passport Details Of 'Estranged' Husband To Wife

Title: MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS vs ASMITA SACHIN WAMAN

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1129

The Delhi High Court has set aside an order of the Central Information Commission by which the Ministry of External Affairs had been directed to disclose under the RTI Act the details relating to the passport and marriage certificate, address proof, ID proof and other related documents of an estranged husband to his wife.

Justice Yashwant Varma said the the question related to the disclosures under RTI Act with respect to a passport or any other personal identification document of a third party is no longer res integra.

6. Use Of Domain Name 'dream11.bet' Amounts To Infringement, Passing Off: Delhi HC Grants Permanent Injunction In Favour Of Dream11

Case Title: Sporta Technologies Pvt. Ltd. and Another v. Virat Saxena

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1130

The Delhi High Court recently passed a summary judgment in favour of the Dream11 parent company Sporta Technologies Private Limited against a person who was operating the domain name 'www.dream11.bet' allegedly as a gambling website.

Justice Navin Chawla said the plaintiffs have been able to prove that they are the registered proprietor of the 'Dream11 Marks' and that the domain name adopted by the defendant is deceptively similar to that of the plaintiffs and is clearly intended to ride on the goodwill and reputation of their marks.

7. After Delhi High Court Ruling, Telegram Discloses Names, Phone Numbers & IP Addresses Of Users Accused Of Sharing Infringing Material

Title: NEETU SINGH vs TELEGRAM FZ LLC

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1131

Complying with the August 30 ruling that held that courts in India can direct a messaging app to disclose the information of infringers, Telegram has disclosed the admin names, phone numbers and IP Addresses of the channels which are accused of unauthorised sharing of the study material prepared by Campus Private Limited and its teacher Neetu Singh for various competitive examinations.

Justice Prathiba M. Singh in the order dated November 24 said the names of admins, the phone numbers and IP addresses of some of the channels as are available with Telegram have been supplied.

"Let copy of the said data be supplied to ld. Counsel for Plaintiffs with the clear direction that neither the Plaintiffs nor their counsel shall disclose the said data to any third party, except for the purposes of the present proceedings. To this end, disclosure to the governmental authorities/police is permissible," said the court.

8. Delhi High Court Declares 'Bukhara' A Well-Known Trademark, Says ITC Restaurant 'Intrinsically' Connected To Indian Cuisine

Title: ITC LIMITED vs CENTRAL PARK ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1132

The Delhi High Court has declared ITC Limited's 'Bukhara' as a well known trademark under Section 2(zg) read with Section 11(2) of the Trade Marks Act and directed the Registrar to add it to the list of well-known trademarks upon completion of requisite formalities.

Justice Prathiba M. Singh in the judgment said that certain trademarks or names attaining the status of well-known marks have been acknowledged and recognised by courts in India for the last two-three decades.

"Illustratively, marks such as 'APPLE', 'WHIRLPOOL', 'BENZ' etc., have been recognised as 'well-known' marks even before the said marks were actually used on a commercial scale in India. The said concept of according recognition for 'well-known' marks was finally incorporated statutorily in the Trade Marks Act, 1999, thus strengthening the recognition granted to such mark," Justice Singh said.

9. High Court Directs Delhi Govt To Consider Career Counselling Programmes For Class XI, XII Students For Informed Choice Of Subjects

Title: SHISHRAM AS GUARDIAN OF MR. KAWAL vs BAL BHAVAN INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL & ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1133

Observing that career guidance of students in Class XI and XII is crucial, the Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi government to consider having a system for career counselling of the students to ensure that an informed decision is taken by them regarding their subject choices

Justice Sanjeev Narula in a ruling observed that it is essential that students are counselled in the decision-making process, and asked the authorities to step-in to ensure that there is an appropriate system of counselling or career guidance programmes in schools to assist students.

"If students are made aware of admission policies of different universities, it could only help them in making an informed decision regarding their subject choices. Mr. Unmukt Gera, counsel for GNCTD, states that such systems must be in place, although he is unable to readily cite the same. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to GNCTD/ DoE to examine this issue in consultation with experts in the field and in case, any lacunae is required to be filled-in, they may do so by issuing appropriate directions to schools," the court said.

10. 16-Yr-Old's Consent Immaterial: Delhi High Court Denies Bail To 23-Yr-Old Married Man, Says Facts Specially Disentitle Him From Bail In POCSO Case

Title: Javed vs State NCT Of Delhi

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1134

Reiterating that a minor's consent is immaterial in the eyes of law, the Delhi High Court recently denied bail to a 23-year-old man in a POCSO case, who is accused of allegedly raping a 16-year-old minor, observing that his age and the fact that he was already married, disentitle him from getting bail.

Justice Jasmeet Singh also took note of the submission that the accused had got date of birth of the complainant changed in the Aadhaar card to show her as major.

"The conduct of the applicant of getting the date of birth changed in the Aadhar card of the complainant is a serious offence. It seems that the applicant wanted to take advantage by getting the Date of Birth on the Aadhar Card changed so that when the applicant established physical relationship with the complainant, she was not a minor," the court said.

11. Delhi High Court Directs Centre, KVS To Sanction Posts Of 987 Special Educators In Kendriya Vidyalayas

Title: SOCIAL JURIST, A CIVIL RIGHTS GROUP v. KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN & ANR.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1135

The Delhi High Court has directed the Union Government and Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (KVS) to sanction the posts of 987 special educators for catering to the needs of 5,625 special children studying in various Kendriya Vidyalayas.

"In order to enable the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan to appoint 987 special educators, eight weeks' time is granted to the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and to the Union of India to sanction the post of 987 special educators," a division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad said.

12. Evolving Transparent, Hassle-Free Process For EWS Admissions In Private Schools: Delhi Govt To High Court

Title: JUSTICE FOR ALL v. HONBLE LG OF DELHI AND ORS

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1136

The Delhi Government has informed the High Court that it is evolving a transparent, uniform and hassle-free admission process for children under economically weaker section (EWS) category in private unaided recognized schools.

A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad was also told that a portal has been developed displaying the number of vacancies, and that the parents can apply online for the vacancies available under the admission quota.

13. Time Spent On Application Under Section 8 Of A&C Act, Not Excludable For Computation Of Limitation For Counter Claim: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Web Overseas Limited versus Universal Industrial Plants Manufacturing Company Private Limited

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1137

The Delhi High Court has ruled that in a suit filed by a party, the time spent by the opposite party in pursuing its application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), cannot be excluded for the purpose of computation of the limitation period for filing the counter-claims by the opposite party before the Arbitral Tribunal.

The bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Amit Mahajan held that the benefit of Section 14 (1) of the Limitation Act, 1963 is available only to the plaintiff who has been prosecuting civil proceedings against the defendant, and not to the defendant who is resisting a claim.

The Court added that filing of an application under Section 8 of the A&C Act cannot be construed as a party pursuing his claim before a Court so as to avail the benefit of Section 14(1) of the Limitation Act.

14. NCLT Cannot Assume Power To Declare IBC Provisions, 2016 Regulations As Illegal Or Ultra Vires: Delhi High Court

Title: INSOLVENCY AND BANKRUPTCY BOARD OF INDIA v. STATE BANK OF INDIA & ORS

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1138

The Delhi High Court has ruled that the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) cannot assume the power to declare as illegal or ultra vires any of the provisions of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016 or Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016.

Justice Pratibha M Singh said that the jurisdiction to deal with the validity and legality of the Regulations framed under the IBC is not conferred upon the NCLT.

15. Delhi High Court Halts Manufacture Of 'Rallies' Bicycles By Ludhiana Firms In Trademark Infringement Suit By Accell Group Subsidiary

Title: SWISS BIKE VERTRJEBS GMBH SUBSIDIARY OF ACCELL GROUP v. IMPERIAL CYCLE MEG. CO. (PARTNERSHIP FIRM) & ANR.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1139

The Delhi High Court has directed two Ludhiana-based firms to cease fresh manufacturing of 'Rallies' bicycles after a subsidiary of Switzerland based Accell Group alleged trademark infringement in relation to similar products being manufactured by it under 'Raleigh' mark.

Justice Pratibha M Singh also directed the entities - Imperial Cycle Mfg. Co. and Rocket Cycles Private Limited, to shut down their website www.ralliesbikes.com, within a period of one week.

The court was dealing with a suit filed by Swiss Bike Vertriebs GMBH against the two Punjab-based entities seeking permanent injunction for restraining them from infringing its trademark 'RALEIGH' used for bicycles, cycles or bikes.

16. Delhi High Court Awards Over ₹2 Crore Damages To Adobe In Trademark Infringement Suit Against Habitual Cyber-Squatter

Case Title: ADOBE, INC v. NAMASE PATEL AND OTHERS

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1140

The Delhi High Court has awarded over two crores as damages in favour of Adobe, a US-based multinational computer software company, while decreeing its suit alleging infringement of its registered trademark 'ADOBE' by one Namase Patel.

The cyber squatter is accused of registering confusingly similar domain names in respect of computer software and other IT related services.

Justice C Hari Shankar permanently restrained Namase Patel and any other person associated with him from registering any domain names which incorporate or use the trademarks "ADOBE", "PHOTOSHOP" or "SPARK" in a manner which could result in infringement of Adobe's marks.

17. Trial Court Record Lost, Delhi High Court Sets Aside Conviction 19 Years After Verdict

Title: RAMESH KAUSHIK v. STATE OF DELHI

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1141

Over 19 years after the appeal was admitted, the Delhi High Court has set aside the conviction and sentence awarded to a man in 2003 for culpable homicide not amounting to murder — as the trial court record could not be found or re-constructed despite repeated efforts.

Justice Jasmeet Singh allowed the appeal filed by one Ramesh Kaushik challenging the conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial court in October 2003.

"I am of the view that in order to affirm the conviction of the appellant, the perusal of the Trial Court Record is the essential element of hearing of the appeal. Every appellant has a right to satisfy the Appellate Court that the material evidence available on record did not justify his conviction and this is a valuable right which cannot be denied to an appellant," said the court.

18. Export Proceeds Not Remitted Within Time; Duty Drawback To Be Recovered: Delhi High Court

Case Title: R.K. Overseas Versus Senior Intelligence Officer, DRI

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1142

The Delhi High Court has held that the exporter is otherwise not entitled to duty drawback and, if already paid, is liable to be reimbursed because the buyer did not send any export proceeds within the required time frame.

The division bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju has observed that since the amount that is lying credited to the petitioner's account, concededly, represents a part of the duty drawback sanctioned in favor of the petitioner against 20 shipping bills, no such direction can be issued that would ultimately result in the petitioner getting access to the funds.

19. Requirement Of Notice Of Arbitration Is Not A Mere Technicality: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Rahul Jain v. Atul Jain, ARB. P. 539 of 2017

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1143

The High Court of Delhi has held that a notice of arbitration is sine qua non for commencing an arbitral proceeding and invalidity of invocation goes to the very root of the matter and hits the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain applications arising out of the arbitration proceedings.

The bench of Justice Prateek Jalan held that requirement of a notice of arbitration is not a mere technicality and its non-compliance cannot be ignored merely because the instrument was a family settlement agreement.

The Court also held that the finding of the Court, regarding the non-existence of the arbitration agreement, made on an application under Section 8 of the A&C Act would be final and binding on the parties if remains unchallenged before the filing of the petition under Section 11 of the A&C Act.

20. Telegram Shares User Information In Second Copyright Infringement Case, Delhi High Court Says Its Disclosure To Police Permissible

Title: LIVING MEDIA INDIA LIMITED & ANR. versus TELEGRAM FZ LLC & ORS

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1144

Nearly a week after it disclosed before Delhi High Court the admin names, phone numbers and IP Addresses of users accused of sharing copyrighted study material in a suit filed by a teacher, Telegram has again shared in sealed cover the identity details of more users who have been accused by India Today Group of infringing its trademarks and copyrights.

In the order dated November 29, Justice Amit Bansal recorded that pursuant to the order passed by the court on October 18, Telegram "has placed on record the identity/Basic Subscribers Information of the defendants in a sealed cover".

The court ordered that the data filed on behalf of Telegram be provided in a sealed cover to the counsels for the plaintiff "with a clear direction that neither the plaintiffs nor the counsels shall disclose the said data to any third party, except for the purposes of the present proceedings."