Delhi High Court Weekly Roundup: March 28 To April 3, 2022

CITATIONS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 242 TO 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 265NOMINAL INDEXMOHD ARIF & ORS. v. SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 242PAWANDEEP SINGH v. THE REGISTRAR OF TRADEMARKS & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 243HIMANI WALIA v. HEMANT WALIA & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 244LOUIS VUITTON MALLETIER v. FUTURETIMES TECHNOLOGY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 245Anand Kumar Pandey v. GNCTD 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 246BHAGWAN SINGH v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 247MOHAMMAD ASHFAQ HUSSAIN v. NIA 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 248ANI MEDIA PVT. LTD. v. VINAY G DAVID & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 249ANJALI BHARDWAJ v. CPIO, SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 250PUJA AGGARWAL v. PRAVESH NARULA 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 251VANDANA VERMA v. ROOP SINGH & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 252RUIA EXPORTS & ANR. v. MONEYWISE FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT.LTD & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 253BURBERRY LTD v. ADITYA VERMA 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 254REENA PASWAN & ANR v. UOI 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 255Union of India v. Bahareh Bakshi 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 256SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC SOUTH EAST ASIA (HQ) PTE LTD v. ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INTERNATIONAL TAXATION CIRCLE 3 (1)(2), NEW DELHI AND ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 257MANKIND PHARMA LIMITED v. TATA MEDICAL AND DIAGNOSTICS LIMITED 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 258Tata Teleservices Limited versus Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 259RADICO KHAITAN LIMITED v. SARAO DISTILLERY (OPC) PVT. LTD. & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 260DELHI WAQF BOARD Through its Chairman v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 261Radhika Ashar v. Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 262Ankur Gupta v. Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 263JA Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s Sithara Entertainment & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 264Rakesh v. Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 265ORDERS/JUDGMENTS1. Party Claiming Private Right In Civil Suit Entitled To File Writ Petition Requiring Municipal Corporation To Discharge Its Duty: Delhi High CourtCase Title: MOHD ARIF & ORS. v. SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS.Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 242The Delhi High Court has adjudicated an issue as to whether a petitioner who has filed a civil suit claiming certain private rights is disentitled to file a writ petition seeking a direction to the Municipal Corporation to carry out its duty.Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva has observed that the power exercised by a High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is for ensuring that the administrative authorities perform their duties and that the same is clearly distinct from a civil right that a private party may exercise against another private party.The Court further observed that merely because the petitioner had filed a civil suit for partition claiming the relief for injunction and no interim order was granted, does not condone the illegal action of a private entity of carrying out illegal unauthorised construction contrary to municipal bye-laws and the Master Plan or preclude a High Court from exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution to ensure compliance of the municipal bye-laws as well as the Master Plan.2. "Refusal Of Trademark Sans Hearing Contrary To Natural Justice": Delhi HC Asks Controller General To Devise Proper Mechanism For Show Cause HearingsCase Title: PAWANDEEP SINGH v. THE REGISTRAR OF TRADEMARKS & ANR.Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 243Observing that refusal of a trademark without even affording an opportunity of hearing to the applicant would be contrary to the fundamental tenets of natural justice, the Delhi High Court has asked the Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trade Marks (CGPDTM) to devise a proper mechanism for holding show cause hearings.Further noting that the Trademark Registry deals with lakhs of applications every year, Justice Pratibha M Singh opined that the utilization of a platform for virtual conference hearing wherein only three individuals are permitted to join at a time, would be grossly insufficient and an outdated mode of holding hearings.3. Not Mandatory To Register Or Pay Stamp Duty On Family Settlements Arrived At Orally, Put Into Writing Only For Purpose Of Info: Delhi HCCase Title: HIMANI WALIA v. HEMANT WALIA & ORS.Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 244The Delhi High Court has observed that there is no requirement to compulsorily register family settlements and to pay stamp duty for the same when such settlement is initially arrived at as an oral partition, however, later is put into writing for the purpose of information." The partition had been agreed upon between the parties by way of oral agreement with the intervention of their counsels. The memorandum of settlement does not itself partition the properties, but only records the same as an aid of memory ," Justice Pratibha M Singh observed.The Court was dealing with an application in a partition suit seeking waiver of payment of stamp duty in respect of the assets inherited by the various parties from the estate in...

Delhi High Court Weekly Roundup: March 28 To April 3, 2022

Nupur Thapliyal

Tags