Delhi High Court Weekly Roundup: October 3 To October 9, 2022

Citations 2022 [LiveLaw (Del) 927 TO 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 945]

NOMINAL INDEX

MICROMAX MEDIA PVT LTD v. M/S HEWLETT PACKARD INDIA SALES PVT LTD & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 927

PAWAN RELEY AND ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. and other connected matters 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 928

PADMA DOONGA vs GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 929

ABC v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 930

Dhiraj Aggarwal v. UOI & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 931

FREYA KOTHARI v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 932

TATA SONS PRIVATE LIMITED v. HAKUNAMATATA TATA FOUNDERS & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 933

PANKAJ CHOUDHARY v. UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 934

Extramarks Education India Private Limited v. Shri Ram School & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 935

SUPER CASSETTES INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED v. TATA MOTORS LIMITED 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 936

XYZ v. THE STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 937

ANMOL AND ANOTHER v. SUSHILA 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 938

JAMES PASCAL v. NARCOTIC CONTROL BUREAU 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 939

SACHIN HINDURAO WAZE v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 940

Loreal India Private Limited v. Union Of India 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 941

Consulting Engineers Group Limited v. National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 942

PEPS INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED v. KURLON LIMITED 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 943

VIRENDER SINGH v. PR SECRETARY CUM DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 944

Vinita Gupta v. Amit Arora 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 945

1. [CPC] Objective Of Interrogatories Is To Narrow Controversy, Can't Be Used By Plaintiff For Substituting Burden Of Proof: Delhi High Court

Title: MICROMAX MEDIA PVT LTD v. M/S HEWLETT PACKARD INDIA SALES PVT LTD & ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 927

The Delhi High Court has observed that the interrogatories cannot be used by the plaintiff in a suit for substituting its burden of proving things by adducing relevant evidence, adding that its objective is to narrow the controversy and facilitate framing of issues regarding the disputed facts.

Justice Neena Bansal Krishna further added that Order 11 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is for expediting trial of the suit, thereby saving judicial time and costs of litigation.

"The interrogatories must be used liberally by the parties. One of the great object of the interrogatories when properly administered is to save evidence i.e., to diminish the burden of proof which was otherwise on the plaintiff. The object is not merely to discover the facts but also to save the expense of proving a part on the case," the court said.

2. [Senior Citizens Act] Lawyers Can Represent Parties Before Maintenance Tribunal, Section 17 No Bar: Delhi High Court

Title: PAWAN RELEY AND ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. and other connected matters

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 928

The Delhi High Court has said that Section 17 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 will not bar parties from having legal practitioners represent them before the Maintenance Tribunal.

Section 17 of the 2007 Act specifically states no party to a proceeding before a tribunal or appellate tribunal shall be represented by a legal practitioner, notwithstanding anything contained in any law. A batch of petitions filed before the High Court in 2019 challenged the provision, alleging that it was in violation of Section 30 of the Advocates Act which gives advocates the right to practise in courts and tribunals.

A division bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan in a recent judgement expressed their agreement with a 2014 ruling of Punjab and Haryana High Court wherein it was held that if a tribunal is legally authorised to take evidence, an advocate has a right to practice there.

3. Cannot Issue Directions To Authorities For Out of Turn Disposal of Matters, Amounts to Controlling Their Roster: Delhi High Court

Title: PADMA DOONGA vs GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 929

The Delhi High Court has observed that a High Court, while exercising the powers of superintendence and control under Article 226 and 227, cannot issue directions to the competent authorities for disposal of matters as the same would amount to controlling their roster.

Justice Yashwant Varma in the order said that while a statute may prescribe timelines for disposal of cases, it is for the relevant authority to examine and evaluate which matters are required to be accorded precedence.

"Ultimately it must be left to the competent authority to manage its board and prioritise matters based on an assessment of individual facts of each case. The issuance of the writs as prayed for would clearly amount to the Court controlling the roster of the authority," the court added.

4. Delhi Govt Yet To Constitute State Mental Health Authority Under 2017 Act, Existing Panel Cannot Continue: High Court

Title: ABC v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 930

Rejecting Delhi government's stand that the State Authority for Mental Health Services constituted under the Mental Health Act, 1987, can continue to function as it is under the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017, the Delhi High Court has said Section 45 of the new enactment required respective state governments to constitute a new body - the State Mental Health Authority [SMHA], within a period of nine months.

Justice Yashwant Varma in the order dated September 23 said SMHA was yet to be constituted by Delhi government in accordance with the 2017 enactment. The observation from the court came after the state government in its additional affidavit "candidly conceded" that the authority constituted in terms of the repealed enactment of 1987 continued by virtue of Section 126(2)(b) of the 2017 Act.

However, the court said, "the statutory command as contained in Section 45 of the 2017 Act required respective State Governments to constitute the SMHA in accordance with its provisions within a period of nine months."

5. After Centre Says 200-Crore COVID Vaccinations Crossed, Delhi High Court Disposes Of PIL Seeking Door-to-Door Inoculation

Title: Dhiraj Aggarwal v. UOI & Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 931

Following the Centre's submission that more than 200 crore COVID-19 vaccine doses have been administered across the country, the Delhi High Court has disposed of a Public Interest Litigation seeking a helpline for assistance of those registering for inoculation.

A bed-ridden senior citizen had approached the court last year, stating she was at a high risk of getting exposed to the virus if she wishes to go out to the vaccination centre. It was stated that she was suffering from arthritis. Accordingly, her PIL also prayed for framing of an urgent policy for door-to-door vaccination of super-senior and bed-ridden citizens in the national capital.

A central government counsel in a recent hearing told the court that the State has carried out door to door vaccination and more than 200 crore doses have been provided to the people across India. The counsel submitted that no further orders are required to be passed in the PIL.

6. 'Not An Expert On Medical Science': Delhi High Court Dismisses Plea Challenging NEET-UG 2022's Final Answer Key

Title: FREYA KOTHARI v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 932

Dismissing a candidate's plea challenging the final answer key issued by National Testing Agency (NTA) for National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET) Undergraduate Examination, 2022, the Delhi High Court said it is not an expert in the field of medical science to sit over the decision of experts and substitute it with its own wisdom.

Noting that final answers are published after experts duly consider various objections raised by the candidates, Justice Amit Mahajan observed that there was no material on record to doubt the decision taken by such experts. The final answer key for the exam held in July was issued on September 08.

Observing that scope of judicial review in such cases is limited, the court said the questions asked for the candidates were tricky and their answers cannot be argued to be in a straitjacket formula.

7. Delhi High Court Permanently Restrains Foreign Company From Using 'TATA' Trademark In Cryptocurrency Trading

Title: TATA SONS PRIVATE LIMITED v. HAKUNAMATATA TATA FOUNDERS & ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 933

Ruling in favour of Tata Sons Private Limited, the Delhi High Court has permanently restrained a UK-based company from unauthorisedly using the Indian conglomerate's registered trademark 'TATA' while selling and marketing digital token or cryptocurrency.

Passing an order of permanent injunction against 'HakunaMatata $TATA Founders' that has now changed its name to Hakumatata Token Ltd and started a new website, Justice Pratibha M Singh confirmed an ad interim injunction order of a division bench.

The appellate court had also asked the company and domain name registrar to take down the two websites www.hakunamatata.finance and www.tatabonus.com.

8. [Civil Services] Timelines Prescribed For Candidates To Upload Form Sacrosanct, Cannot Be Tinkered With: Delhi High Court

Title: PANKAJ CHOUDHARY v. UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 934

The Delhi High Court has said that the timelines prescribed by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) for candidates to upload the detailed application form (DAF) are sacrosanct and cannot be tinkered with.

A division bench of Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela made the observation in a judgement dismissing the plea filed by a candidate Pankaj Choudhary.

Choudhary had failed to upload the form for the Indian Forest Services (Mains) examination, which is scheduled to be held on November 20. He had qualified the prelim examination held on June 5 and was declared successful to participate in the CSE (Mains) and IFS (Mains) - he was required to fill up the DAF separately for them.

9. Limitation Period For Invoking Arbitration Cannot Be Extended By Consent: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Extramarks Education India Private Limited v. Shri Ram School & Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 935

The Delhi High Court has ruled that a statement made by the opposite party in the reply to the notice invoking the arbitration clause, giving consent for appointment of an arbitrator, would not extend the limitation period for invoking arbitration, if the claims raised by the claimant are ex-facie time-barred.

The Single Bench of Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani held that the limitation period for invoking a legal remedy cannot be extended even by consent. The Court ruled that a party may concede a claim at any time, however, it cannot concede the availability of a legal remedy beyond the prescribed period of limitation.

10. After Super Cassettes Moves Delhi High Court, Tata Motors Agrees To Drop 'T-Series' Mark

Title: SUPER CASSETTES INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED v. TATA MOTORS LIMITED

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 936

After Super Cassettes Industries took Tata Motors to court for using its famed trademark T-Series in the marketing of its commercial vehicles, the companies recently settled the matter before the Delhi High Court with the automotive manufacturer undertaking not to use the record label 'T-Series or T.Series' in respect of its automobile products.

Super Cassettes Private Limited had filed a suit in February seeking a permanent injunction restraining infringement, passing off and damages against Tata Motors Ltd. The court was recently told that the parties have settled their disputes amicably.

Tata Motors in the settlement acknowledged the statutory and common law rights of Super Cassettes in the trademarks 'T-Series or T.Series' marks.

11. Mere Engagement Does Not Permit A Person To Sexually Assault His Fiancé: Delhi High Court In Bail Order

Case Title: XYZ v. THE STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 937

Denying bail to a man accused of raping his fiancé multiple times on the pretext of their planned marriage, the Delhi High Court has observed that mere fact of being engaged does not mean that the accused can sexually assault, beat or threaten her.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma made the observation while rejecting the argument made on behalf of the accused that since the parties were engaged, it cannot be said that there was false promise of marriage.

"However, in this Court's opinion, the argument has no force, since the mere fact of being engaged did not mean that the accused could have sexually assaulted, beaten or threatened the victim," the court said in an order dated September 22.

12. Forums Under Senior Citizens Act Cannot Adjudicate On Claims of Property Ownership: Delhi High Court

Title: ANMOL AND ANOTHER v. SUSHILA

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 938

The Delhi High Court has observed that forums or authorities under Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 cannot adjudicate and undertake a trial with respect to the issues concerning civil and property rights of the warring parties.

Justice Yashwant Varma said the question regarding claim of ownership in a property cannot form subject matter of consideration or adjudication in proceedings under the Act.

"The forums constituted under the 2007 Act are neither obliged nor required to undertake a trial with respect to the civil and property rights that may be claimed by the warring factions. Those issues must be ultimately left to be conclusively adjudicated by the competent civil courts," the court said in an order passed on September 26.

13. With Just Few Months Left In His Sentence & Appeal Still Pending, Delhi High Court Orders Release Of Foreigner In NDPS Case

Title: JAMES PASCAL v. NARCOTIC CONTROL BUREAU

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 939

The Delhi High Court has suspended the sentence of a foreigner, who was awarded 10 years of imprisonment in a case registered under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act in 2020, after noting that he has spent almost the entire period of his sentence without his appeal having been heard.

Justice Jasmeet Singh was of the view that it will be a perversity of justice and rights of the foreign national, if his sentence is not suspended.

"This is a classic case where the filing of appeal has been rendered nugatory on account of procedural delays and lack of support to foreigners in getting legal assistance," the court said.

It added "Undergoing the period of 9 years 6 months without having the appeal being heard and being in jail cannot be the essence of our judicial system."

14. When Proceedings Pending Elsewhere, UAPA Sanctioning Authority's Order Cannot Be Challenged In Delhi Just Because MHA Is Here: Delhi High Court

Title: SACHIN HINDURAO WAZE v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 940

The Delhi High Court has ruled that the mere fact that the authority granting sanction for prosecution under Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) is located in the national capital, will not give the court the jurisdiction to quash the order especially when all the ingredients, events and proceedings relating to the case are taking place in another jurisdiction.

A division of Justice Mukta Gupta and Justice Anish Dayal made the observation while dismissing the plea moved by former Mumbai police officer Sachin Waze for quashing of the order granting sanction to prosecute him under UAPA in theAntilia bomb scare case.

Rejecting the plea for lack of territorial jurisdiction, the court said:

"Having considered the facts and circumstances of the matter and the obvious forum conveniens for the petitioner, being a resident of Mumbai, seeking relief relating to proceedings underway in Mumbai, the special courts and authorities investigating and adjudicating the matter located in Mumbai, this Court finds no reason to clothe itself with territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the relief sought in this petition."

15. Rate Reduction Benefit By Reduction In Prices: Delhi High Court Directs Loreal To Deposit Principal Profiteered Amount

Case Title: Loreal India Private Limited v. Union Of India

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 941

The Delhi High Court has directed Loreal to deposit the principal profiteered amount after deducting the GST imposed on the net profiteered amount in six equal instalments.

The division bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma has observed that the interest amount directed to be paid by the department as well as the penalty proceedings and investigation by the National Anti-Profiteering Authority (NAA) in respect of other products sold by Loreal has stayed till further orders.

The court has noted that under Section 171, any benefit of a reduction in the rate of taxes or benefit of an input tax credit on any supply of goods or services can only be by way of a commensurate reduction in prices.

16. Members Of Joint Venture Cannot Invoke Arbitration Clause In Their Individual Capacity: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Consulting Engineers Group Limited v. National Highways Authority of India (NHAI)

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 942

The Delhi High Court has ruled that where an agreement is entered into by the parties by forming a consortium / Joint Venture, one of the members of the consortium cannot separately invoke the arbitration agreement in their individual capacity.

The Single Bench of Justice Mini Pushkarna reiterated that when there is an agreement with a consortium, it is never the intention of the parties that one of the members of the consortium can separately invoke the arbitration clause.

A notice inviting tender was issued by the respondent- National Highways Authority of India (NHAI), for providing consultancy services.

17. Not Open For Court To Suo Motu Question Validity Of Trademark Registration If Not Disputed By Defendant: Delhi High Court

Title: PEPS INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED v. KURLON LIMITED

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 943

The Delhi High Court has said that it is not open for a court to suo motu question the validity of the registration of a trademark if the same is not disputed or brought in question by the defendant in a suit.

Observing that Section 9 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 does not embody any statutory interdictions at the post registration stage, a division bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan said that if the validity of the registration of the trademark is not brought in issue, the statutory assumption that the marks are valid must be accepted.

"Therefore, once the mark has been registered, it is accepted as, prima facie, valid unless an objection is raised questioning the validity of the registration and is adjudicated by the Court," the court observed.

18. [Senior Citizens Act] What Are The Factors Appellate Authority Needs To Consider While Dealing With Application Seeking Stay On Eviction Order? Delhi High Court Answers

Title: VIRENDER SINGH v. PR SECRETARY CUM DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER & ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 944

The Delhi High Court has set out the various factors that are necessary to be taken into consideration by the appellate authority under the Senior Citizens Act, 2007 while dealing with an application seeking stay in a pending appeal against an eviction order.

Justice Yashwant Varma observed that in such cases, the appellate authority would have to consider the nature of evidence that was placed before the Tribunal which constrained it to pass an eviction order.

The court added that if the appellate authority finds that the eviction order was predicated upon cogent and reliable material showing harassment and ill-treatment towards senior citizens, such an order may be permitted to run, resulting in removal of the offending parties from the premises till the appeal is decided.

19. ApplesTree vs ApplePlant: How Delhi High Court Interpreted Synonymy In A Trademark Infringement Suit

Title: Vinita Gupta v. Amit Arora

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 945

Interpreting synonymy in a matter related to two similar trademarks - APPLESTREE and APPLEPLANT, which belong to different manufacturers, the Delhi High Court in a recent order said the words 'plant' and 'tree' are a classic example of synonymy where reading one would bring in mind the other and lead to confusion in the mind of purchasers.

Justice Jyoti Singh noted that the study of semantic theory goes back to the founder of common linguistics W. Humboldt, and the theory suggests that the words in the English language system are so related that they form a complete lexical system and grouping.

"Synonymy would cover the semantic field where words have nearly the same meanings such that they can be interchanged in some degree and most common cases under this head are of relative synonymy as it is difficult to find words which are absolute synonyms of each other," said Justice Singh.