Delhi High Court Weekly Round-Up: October 10 To October 16, 2022

Citations 2022 [LiveLaw (Del) 946 TO 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 979]NOMINAL INDEXCIT Versus Travelport L.P. USA 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 946Dharampal Satyapal Limited & Anr. v. Mr. Youssef Anis Mehio & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 947Esha Kedia versus Milan R. Parekh & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 948Kishan Lal Kuria Mal International versus Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 949M/s Victory Electric Vehicles International Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 950PAWAN KUMAR KAKARIA v. ANIL KUMAR RAI & ANR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 951DEVKI NANDAN GARG v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 952Saleem & Ors. v. Wahid Malik 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 953M/S Young Men S Tennis Club v. NDMC 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 954GAGANDEEP SINGH ADHI v. STATE NCT OF DELHI 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 955Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd. & Anr. versus Dowager Maharanis Residential Accommodation Welfare & Amenities Trust & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 956Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd. v. Shah Aircon 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 957VIKRANT KAPILA & ANR. v. PANKAJA PANDA & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 958PCIT Versus M/s Rajdarbar Heritage Venture Limited 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 959ALLERGAN INC AND ANR. v. CONTROLLER GENERAL OF PATENTS DESIGNS AND TRADE MARKS AND ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 960SATYENDAR K JAIN v. THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 961HAKIM & ANR v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) and other connected matter 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 962SUNSHINE TEAHOUSE PVT. LTD. v. MTRM GLOBAL PVT. LTD. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 963VINEET ANAND THROUGH SPA HOLDER v. KIRAN ANAND AND SONS HUF THROUGH KARTA & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 964M/s Janta Associates and Co. Ltd. versus Indian Oil Foundation & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 965MS PRIYANKA AGARWAL v. UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION AND ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 966Nagesh Trading Co. Versus Income Tax Officer 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 967SUNIL KUMAR SAINI v. THE DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE and other connected matter 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 968RUBA AHMED & ANR. v. HANSAL MEHTA & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 969SAGAR SRIVASTAVA v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 970DR SARBESH BHATTACHARJEE v. STATE NCT OF DELHI 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 971STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) v. Pappu 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 972MR. RAJESH KATHPAL v. M/S SHUBH STEEL 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 973Welspun Enterprises Ltd. v. NCC Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 974TORRENT POWER LIMITED v. NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR SCHEDULED CASTES & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 975M/S M. SONS GEMS N JJEWELLERY PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS v. RESERVE BANK OF INDIA & ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 976GAUTAM KHAITAN v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 977Kush Raj Bhatia v. DLF Power and Services Limited 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 978SHARJEEL USMANI v. JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 9791. Travel Agent's Booking Function Is Not Substantial Business Activity And Not Taxable: Delhi High CourtCase Title: CIT Versus Travelport L.P. USACitation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 946The Delhi High Court has held that the travel agents in India were merely connected to the extent that they could perform a booking function but were not capable of processing the data of all the airlines together in one place.The division bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora has held that a booking function is not covered under substantial business activity and, therefore, not taxable.2. 'Rajnigandha Well Known Trademark, Entitled To Higher Degree Of Protection': Delhi High Court Blocks Sale of Rajni PaanTitle: Dharampal Satyapal Limited & Anr. v. Mr. Youssef Anis Mehio & Ors.Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 947The Delhi High Court recently passed a decree in favour of Dharampal Satyapal Limited - the manufacturers of the iconic pan masala Rajnigandha and permanently halted the production, sale or promotion of any product under the trademark 'RAJNI PAAN',Holding that the defendants had intentionally attempted to "trade off the significant goodwill and reputation of the plaintiffs", the Court directed them to pay Rs 3 lakhs in damages. In 2018, the Court had granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction in the case.3. Delhi High Court Delineates Circumstances To Invoke "Group Of Companies" DoctrineCase Title: Esha Kedia versus Milan R. Parekh & Ors.Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 948The Delhi High Court has ruled that the plea that signatures to the MoU containing an arbitration clause were obtained by threat and coercion, cannot be considered while considering an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) for appointment of the Arbitrator.The Single Bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna held that each Company is a separate legal entity which has separate legal rights and liabilities and hence, an agreement entered into by one of the Companies in a group, cannot be binding on the other members of the same group. However, the Court added that in certain exceptional circumstances, by invoking the concept of "Group of Companies", an arbitration agreement can be binding on the non-signatory Companies or a third party.4. Delhi High...

Delhi High Court Weekly Round-Up: October 10 To October 16, 2022

Nupur Thapliyal

Tags