Read Time: 01 hours
1. [Defamation Case by Sandeep Maheshwari] The Delhi High Court has issued an injunction restraining Vikash Kotnala, the YouTube channel partner of entrepreneur Vivek Bindra, from posting any defamatory or disparaging videos or material against YouTuber and motivational speaker Sandeep Maheshwari.The order comes after the court found a prima facie link between Kotnala and Bindra, concluding that Kotnala's videos amounted to circumventing a trial court order that had restrained both Maheshwari and Bindra from posting defamatory material against each other.
Bench: Justice Prateek Jalan
Case Title: Sandeep Maheshwari & Anr. v. Vivek Bindra & Ors.
Click here to read more
2. [Parole Denied to Convicted Murderer] The Delhi High Court has rejected the parole plea of Ravi Kapoor, convicted for the murders of journalist Soumya Vishwanathan and IT executive Jigisha Ghosh, citing the severity of the offences committed by him. The bench while considering Kapoor's criminal history and his overall conduct in jail, deemed it unsatisfactory, with 41 major punishments awarded to him. "Taking into account the criminal history of the petitioner, the facts of the case in which the petitioner has been convicted, the gravity of the offence committed by him, and his overall conduct inside the jail premises, this court is not inclined to grant parole to the petitioner at this stage. Accordingly, the present petition stands dismissed," Justice Sharma said. Kapoor, serving a life sentence, had sought parole for four weeks, citing the need to maintain social ties with his family and to undergo knee surgery.
Bench: Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma
Case Title: Ravi Kapoor v. State of NCT of Delhi
3. [Film Aankh Micholi] The Delhi High Court dismissed a plea that alleged that the film "Aankh Micholi" infringes upon the rights of persons with disabilities (PwD) and portrays characters with disabilities in an "extremely derogatory and insensitive manner." The bench said that once the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) issues a certificate for a movie, courts typically refrain from interference, acknowledging the latitude provided to cinematic works. In response to the plea's dismissal, the court emphasized the importance of creative freedom and said, "We do not want too much censorship. We are one of the few countries where there is prior censorship. We are a country where scenes are deleted before the film's release." The court emphasized that although some elements in movies may be disparaging, addressing social issues involves showcasing their existence.
Bench: Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
Case Title: Nipun Malhotra v. Sony Pictures Films India Private Limited & Ors.
4. [Sharjeel Imam Bail Plea] The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi Police to provide a chart distinguishing the role of Sharjeel Imam from that of previously granted bail accused persons in the 2020 Delhi Riots conspiracy case. Asif Iqbal Tanha, Devangana Kalita, and Natasha Narwal were granted bail in June 2021, with the Supreme Court emphasizing that the order should not serve as a precedent due to its case-specific nature. A division bench was hearing Imam's bail plea and instructed both Imam's counsel and Delhi Police to submit written submissions. The case is scheduled for further proceedings on February 19, 2024. Special Public Prosecutor Amit Prasad, appearing for Delhi Police, highlighted that the Supreme Court's dismissal of Delhi Police's appeal against the bail order for Tanha, Kalita, and Narwal placed the onus on Imam to present his case on merits.
Bench: Justices Suresh Kumar Kait and Manoj Jain
Case Title: Sharjeel Imam v. The State of NCT of Delhi
5. [Animal Film] Cine 1 Studios, a co-producer of the Bollywood film 'Animal,' has approached the Delhi High Court seeking a stay on its release on Over-the-Top (OTT) platforms, digital streaming services, and satellite broadcast. The film, directed by Sandeep Reddy Vanga, premiered in theaters on December 1, 2023, and is scheduled for an OTT release on Netflix on January 26. Cine 1 Studios Pvt. Ltd. alleges a breach of agreement, asserting that it has not received any payment, while defendant and co-producer Super Cassettes Industries Pvt Ltd claims that Rs 2.6 crore was paid to Cine 1 Studios, which the latter failed to disclose to the court. The bench examined the document presented by the defendant regarding the alleged payment of Rs 2.6 crore to Cine 1 Studios. The court, on inquiring about the payment, was informed by Cine 1 Studios' counsel that he was unaware of it, promising to seek instructions from the client and inform the court accordingly.
Bench: Justice Sanjeev Narula
Case Title: Cine1 Studios Private Limited v. Super Cassettes Industries Pvt, Ltd. & Ors.
6. [Illegal Construction] The Delhi High Court strongly criticized Delhi Police and Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) officials for their failure to curb illegal constructions near the Hazrat Nizamuddin Dargah. The bench suggested the possibility of entrusting the investigation into the matter to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). Expressing skepticism over unauthorized construction near a centrally protected monument, the court remarked that such activities could not occur without the involvement of the police and civic authorities.
Case Title: Jamia Arabia Nizamia Welfare Education Society v. Delhi Development Authority through its Vice Chairman and Ors.
7. [Cyber Crime] During the hearing of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) addressing the surge in cyber crimes, the Delhi High Court underscored the need for a reformed policing system to tackle new challenges. The court advocated for the adoption of a simple complaint filing system by authorities to address cyber crimes effectively. The division bench heard a plea addressing the rising incidents of cyber crimes, including the forging of court orders, fake FIRs, and arrest warrants. The court observed that scamsters do not discriminate among their targets and they do not care whether it is a lawyer, judge, businessman or any other person; they just make indiscriminate calls and commit fraud with people. The PIL plea filed by Advocates Akshya and Urvashi Bhatia stated that both the Central and State Cyber Cell websites are inactive, failing to disseminate information to raise awareness about the latest cyber crimes in the country.
Case Title: Akshya & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.
8. [Issue of Waterlogging] While dealing with a suo moto plea on the "absolutely pathetic" state of the drainage system in the national capital, a division bench of the Delhi High Court on Tuesday last week asked the Chief Secretary of Delhi Government and Principal Secretary of Finance to be present on the next hearing. "The Chief Secretary of the Delhi Government, GNCTD, as well as the Principal Secretary of Finance, are requested to join the proceedings on the next date of hearing through video conferencing. On the said date of hearing, they'll give a short presentation as to how they intend to tackle the issue of water logging and as to whether the drainage master plan has been prepared and whether the same is being implemented...We'll have it after January 26. The Chief Secretary will be at liberty to convene a meeting of the integrated drain management cell prior to the next date of hearing," the court ordered. The matter has been scheduled for further consideration on January 30, 2024 at 2:15 p.m.
Case Title: Court on its own motion v. Union of India and Ors.
9. [Defamation Suit against MS Dhoni] Two ex-business partners of former Team India cricket captain MS Dhoni have filed a defamation suit in the Delhi High Court against the cricketer. Mihir Diwakar and Soumya Das are seeking court directions to restrain Dhoni and individuals acting on his behalf from making defamatory allegations against them in connection with an alleged breach of a 2017 contract. The contract, involving Dhoni and Aarka Sports Management (owned by Diwakar and Das), aimed to establish cricket academies in India and globally. The suit is scheduled for hearing on January 18. The plaintiffs have claimed that Dhoni and his representatives made defamatory allegations, accusing Diwakar and Das of duping Dhoni of nearly Rs. 15 crore by not honoring the contract.
Bench: Justice Prathiba M. Singh
Case Title: Mihir Diwakar & Anr v. Mahendra Singh Dhoni & Ors.
10. [Bohemia] The Delhi High Court has granted an ex-parte ad interim order restricting Punjabi rapper and singer Bohemia (born Roger David), from creating music videos, songs, or engaging in any public performances without prior written permission from Saga Music. Court further prohibited Bohemia or his representatives from making defamatory posts against Saga Music. This order will remain effective until the next hearing scheduled for February 23. Saga Music initiated legal action against Bohemia, alleging a breach of their contract.
Bench: Justice Anish Dayal
Case Title: Saga Music Private Limited v. Roger David and Ors.
11. [Widow's Abortion at 29 Weeks] The Center has approached the Delhi High Court, requesting reconsideration of its earlier decision permitting a widow to terminate her 29-week pregnancy. The government argued that the unborn child has a reasonable chance of survival, urging the court to prioritize the right to life of the fetus. The All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), where the woman underwent a medical examination, also approached the court, suggesting that delivering the child at 34 weeks or later would yield better results for both the mother's and the child's health.
Bench: Justice Subramonium Prasad
Case Title: R v. Union of India & Ors.
12. [Twin Promise of Marriage] The Delhi High Court directed framing of rape charges against a man accused of establishing physical relations with a married woman under the promise of marriage, not only to the complainant but also to her legally married husband and family. Court termed it a "twin promise of marriage" case, emphasizing that a trial was required to ascertain whether the accused's actions constituted a breach of promise or a false promise for the purpose of a sexual relationship. The court noted that the accused had given a promise of marriage to the woman, her legally married husband, and her family, pledging to marry her after her divorce and take responsibility for their children. "Strangely, as per admitted facts, the respondent no. 2 had given promise of marriage not only to the petitioner but also to her then legally married husband and her family that after divorce from him, he will not only marry her, but also look after the children born to her and her then legally married husband," it said.
Case Title: X v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Anr.
13. [Contempt of Court] A lawyer sentenced to six months imprisonment for criminal contempt by the Delhi High Court has submitted an unconditional apology to the court. The lawyer, currently in custody after being found guilty on January 9, expressed that there was no intention to scandalize judges and assured the court of exercising caution in the future. The lawyer filed an affidavit for complying with the Supreme Court's direction. The Supreme Court is where the lawyer had appealed against the conviction and sentence in the contempt case.
Bench: Justices Suresh Kumar Kait and Shalinder Kaur
Case Title: Court on its own motion v. Virendra Singh Advocate
14. [MS Dhoni] The Delhi High Court asked its registry to inform former Team India cricket captain MS Dhoni about the filing of a defamation suit against him by his two former business partners. Plaintiffs and former business partners Mihir Diwakar and his wife Soumya Das have approached the high court seeking a permanent injunction and damages against Dhoni, several social media platforms, and media houses, thereby restraining them from making, publishing, and circulating per se defamatory, ex facie false, and malicious statements against them. The bench before whom the plaint came up for hearing, was informed that Dhoni has not been served with the plea by the plaintiffs. During the hearing, the counsel appearing for ANI, a multimedia news agency argued that the plaint is not maintainable.
15. [Devangana Kalita] The Delhi High Court is scheduled to hear a plea filed by Delhi riots accused Devangana Kalita seeking videos of protest on February 15, 2024. Kalita has sought access to video recordings of protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and the National Register of Citizens (NRC), which have been relied upon by the prosecution in the Delhi riots case. Additionally, she has sought access to WhatsApp chats of police groups.
Case Title: Devangana Kalita v. State (NCT of Delhi)
16. [Indian Express Group] The Delhi High Court has overturned an order of the industrial tribunal that sought to raise the retirement age of employees at The Indian Express Group from 58 to 60 years with retroactive effect from 2009. The bench emphasized that such a decision involving a significant economic impact necessitates a thorough analysis considering various parameters. Court noted that the industrial tribunal had not adequately considered relevant materials and had made an "irrational, fragile, perfunctory, and cursory assessment" to reach its conclusion. The judge asserted the need for the court's intervention due to the tribunal's disregard for established parameters in revising service conditions or wages.
Case Title: The Indian Express P Ltd v. The Indian Express Newspapers Workers Union Regd and Anr.
17. [AAP Mohalla Clinics] The Delhi High Court dismissed a plea seeking a court-monitored inquiry into allegations of fake laboratory tests conducted at mohalla clinics established in the city by the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) government. The Delhi government expressed no objection to a court-monitored probe. The application, filed by Bejon Kumar Misra, urged a court-monitored inquiry supervised by a former high court judge into accusations of fake laboratory tests at mohalla clinics.
Case Title: Bejon Kumar Mishra v. Government of NCT of Delhi & Anr.
18. [DCPCR's plea against withholding of funds] The Counsel for Lieutenant Governor (LG), Vinai Kumar Saxena told the Delhi High Court on Friday that the LG has never passed any order withholding funds from the Delhi Commission for Protection of Child Rights (DCPCR). "No order passed by the LG ever stopping the funding", the counsel submitted. The court was hearing a plea filed by the DCPCR challenging an order withholding funds pending an inquiry and a special audit over allegations of misuse of government funds. The counsel for LG also informed the court that the impugned order (the so-called press release) has also never been issued by LG's office. Taking note of the submission Court directed the counsel to file the same on affidavit within four days from today.
Case Title: Delhi Commissioner for Protection of Child Rights and Anr. v. Lieutenant Governor
19. [Minor's in-flight burns] The Delhi High Court has summoned Vistara Airlines in response to a plea filed by the parents of a minor girl seeking damages of nearly Rs. 2.7 crore. The parents alleged that their daughter suffered second-degree burns after a hot beverage was spilled on her by airline staff during a Vistara flight from Delhi to Frankfurt. The bench heard the matter on January 9, 2024 and ordered Vistara to file its response to the suit within a month. The court also directed Vistara to reply to the interim relief application within two weeks and scheduled the next hearing for March 6, 2024.
Bench: Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani
Case Title: Tara Gupta and Ors. v. Tata Sia Airlines Ltd.
20. [Contempt Case against Woman] The Delhi High Court has taken suo motu cognizance of a criminal contempt of court case against one Anita Kumari Gupta, an Indian woman residing in Australia. Gupta allegedly used derogatory language against the court and the Judge during a virtual hearing on January 10. Following the issuance of a date in Gupta's case and the commencement of the next hearing, she used profane language towards the court and Justice Krishna. The court's order recorded her statements as, "How Could Item No. 11 Be Taken Before Item No. 10… Ye s.... kya kar rahi hai? (What is she doing?) What the f*** is going on in this court?" Justice Krishna issued a show cause notice to Gupta, requiring her to appear in person before the court on April 16.
Bench: Justice Neena Bansal Krishna
Case Title: Anita Kumari Gupta v. Ved Bhushan & Others
21. [T-Series and Netflix] The Delhi High Court on Thursday last week issued summons to Super Cassettes and Netflix on a plea filed by Cine1 Studios Private Ltd. seeking a stay on the OTT release of the recent film "Animal," featuring Ranbir Kapoor. The film, directed by Sandeep Reddy Vanga, premiered in theaters on December 1, 2023, and is scheduled for an OTT release on Netflix on January 26. Cine1 Studios, a key producer of the movie, alleges that Super Cassettes Industries Private Ltd. (T-Series) breached their agreement, denying Cine1 its rightful profit share and intellectual property rights. The bench upon admitting the suit, issued summons to the defendants and granted them time to submit a written statement. The court directed the defendants to file an affidavit of admission or denial of the plaintiff's documents along with the written statement, stating that without this affidavit, the written statement would not be accepted.
22. [Mahua Moitra] A bench of the Delhi High Court on Thursday last week dismissed expelled Lok Sabha member and TMC leader Mahua Moitra's plea seeking interim stay on her eviction from government allotted bungalow. "The petitioner having been allotted the government accommodation incidental to her status as a Member of Parliament and that status having ceased upon her expulsion, which expulsion has not been stayed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court despite hearing afforded to her, presently she has no right to continue in the said government accommodation, and accordingly, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, she cannot be granted protection as sought," the court said. On Tuesday, i.e., January 16, Moitra had been instructed by the Directorate of Estates to immediately vacate the government-allotted bungalow, which was allocated to her as a Member of Parliament.
Bench: Justice Girish Kathpalia
Case Title: Mahua Moitra v. Directorate of Estate & Anr.
Please Login or Register
