Read Time: 22 minutes
1. [PIL to link properties to Aadhaar] The Delhi High Court has granted four weeks' time to the concerned Ministries and Delhi government to respond on the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed seeking direction to link movable and immovable property documents of all citizens with their Aadhaar number to curb corruption, black money generation, and 'benami' transactions. The division bench granted four weeks' time to the Ministries of Finance, Law, Housing and Urban Affairs, and Rural Development, Delhi government and UIDAI to file their responses to the plea. The court has now fixed the matter for hearing on September 5.
Bench: Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula
Case Title: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India and Ors.
Click here to read more
2. [Excise Policy Case] The Delhi High Court has directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to place on record the chargesheet in the plea challenging the trial court orders granting bail to Aam Aadmi Party communication in-charge Vijay Nair and Hyderabad-based businessman Abhishek Boinpally in the Delhi Excise Policy case. The bench said, "CBI is directed to place on record the chargesheet". Accordingly, the court posted the matter for further consideration on October 6. The single-judge bench was hearing a plea moved by the CBI against the trial court order granting bail to the two accused in connection with the Delhi Excise Policy Case. During the hearing, Senior Advocate Rebecca John appeared for Vijay Nair and Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra appeared for Abhishek Boinpally.
Bench: Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma
Case Title: CBI v. Vijay Nair & CBI v. Abhishek Binopally
3. [Himalaya Wellness v. Wipro Enterprises] The Delhi High Court recently granted protection to Himalaya Wellness against Wipro Enterprises with respect to a product sold under the name ‘EVECARE’ and ‘EVECARE FORTE’. The court took cognizance of the fact that though the classes of registration were different, the targeted audience was same, the purpose of the alleged product was similar and the entire positioning suggested chances of confusion to the consumers. The Court, while allowing the application for an injunction by the plaintiffs, held, “A prima facie case of passing off is made out on behalf of the plaintiffs. The balance of convenience is also in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant inasmuch as the product of the defendant has been launched only about 1.5 years back and has limited sales. On the other hand, the product of the plaintiffs has been in the market for 24 years and has significant sales. Irreparable harm would be caused not only to the plaintiffs but also to the public if an injunction as sought is not granted in favour of the plaintiffs.”
Bench: Justice Amit Bansal,
Case Title: Himalaya Wellness Company v. Wipro Enterprises
4. [Pernod Ricard plea against the Delhi government's refusal to renew its licence] The Delhi High Court has rejected a petition by French spirits major Pernod Ricard challenging the Delhi government's refusal to renew its licence for sale of liquor in the national capital.Court said that the writ petition was “not maintainable” and asked Pernod Ricard India Pvt Ltd to “approach the appellate authority” under the excise law with its grievance. "This Court, accordingly holds that the present writ is not maintainable in view of the express statutory provision which permits the Petitioner to approach the Appellate Authority against the impugned order dated 13 2023 in term of section 72 of the Excise Act, 2009...The Petitioner is permitted to approach the Appellate Authority under the Excise Act, 2009 by filing an appeal within two weeks. If such an appeal is filed within the period prescribed, the same shall not be dismissed on the ground of limitation," the court ordered. PRI had approached the High Court earlier this year and on March 29 the court had asked the Delhi Government’s Excise Department to take a decision on the company’s L-1 license application. Subsequently, after rejection of PRI’s application, it moved the court again.
Bench: Justice Prathiba M. Singh
Case Title: Pernod Ricard India Private Limited v. Government of NCT of Delhi & Anr.
5. [1984 Anti-Sikh Riots] The Special Investigation Team (SIT) has submitted before the Delhi High Court that the trial court, while granting bail to former Congress leader Sajjan Kumar, did not consider his conviction in another 1984 Sikh riots case. The bench was hearing a plea by SIT challenging the trial court order granting the former Congress leader bail in the rioting and murder case lodged at Saraswati Police Station. The case concerns the murder of one Jaswant Singh and his son Tarun Deep Singh, both residents of West Delhi. During the hearing, Central Government Standing Counsel (CGSC) Ajay Digpaul appeared for the SIT and contented that the trial court while granting bail to former Congress Leader Sajjan Kumar did not consider his conviction and sentence in the Delhi Cantt riots case. He submitted that the trial court made some observations that were not required at the stage of bail.
Case Title: State, through SIT 1984 Riots v. Sajjan Kumar
6. [Wrestlers' plea against exemption granted to Bajrang Punia and Vinesh Phogat] The Delhi High Court has sought response of the Wrestling Federation of India (WFI) in plea by wrestlers Antim Panghal and Sujeet Kalkal over the exemption granted to Vinesh Phogat and Bajrang Punia for direct entry to Asian Games 2023 trials by the WFI ad-hoc. The joint petition of the two wrestlers was mentioned before Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma yesterday, who had listed the matter for today. During the hearing the court asked the WFI, as to what is the basis for selecting these persons, other than the fact that they’re good sportspersons. “Have you done any kind of selection process? …the entire case is that there has to be some kind of a trial, so that the petitioners do not doubt the competence on the merit of the two wrestlers whom you have selected for representing the country”, Justice Prasad said. He added, “What they say is that the past performance alone cannot be the basis of sending the two persons forward”.
Bench: Justice Subramonium Prasad
Case Title: Sujeet & Anr. v. Union of India and Ors.
7. [Tajinder Bagga Defamation Case] The Delhi High Court has asked Rajya Sabha MP Subramanian Swamy "to satisfy it on the maintainability" of his plea challenging summons issued by a trial court in a defamation complaint filed by BJP leader Tajinder Pal Singh Bagga over a tweet claiming it to be false and defamatory. The bench said the petitioner instead of invoking the revisional jurisdiction of the Additional Sessions Judge has filed the present petition under Article 226/227 read with Section 482 of the CrPC for setting aside/quashing of the criminal complaint. “It is a settled law that the summoning order passed by the court of MM/ACMM is amenable to revisional jurisdiction”, the judge said. Bagga has alleged that Swamy, who has over 10 million followers on Twitter, put out a “false and incorrect” tweet accusing him of being jailed after joining the BJP.
Case Title: Dr. Subramanian Swamy v. Tajinder Pal Singh Bagga
8. [PIL seeking to regulate or manage drug and alcohol de-addiction centres] The Delhi High Court has asked the Centre to continue with its efforts and ‘remain steadfast’ in the endeavour to combat substance abuse. "It requires sustained attention and can contribute to the overall betterment of society and protect public health," said the court. The division bench took note of the proactive approach and initiatives taken by the government in addressing the issues raised in a PIL which sought to regulate or manage drug and alcohol de-addiction centres across India. Taking note of all the initiatives undertaken, the Government’s recognition of the gravity and widespread impact of substance abuse across the country and the commitment to address the issue, the court said, “Nonetheless, we must add that it is crucial that the Government continue its efforts and remain steadfast in the endeavour to combat substance abuse, as it requires sustained attention and a multifaceted approach”.
Case Title: Rajiv Boolchand Jain v. Union of India and Ors.
9. [JJ Rules] The Delhi High Court has granted four weeks' more time to the Centre to file its reply in a plea filed by the Delhi Commission for Protection of Child Rights (DCPCR) challenging the constitutional validity of certain clauses in the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Model Rules, 2016 related to the social background report and social investigation report. Noting that the counsel for Centre sought further time to file reply, the division bench said, "Counsel is granted further time to file reply. List after 4 weeks". "Since, in the present petition the vires of JJ Rules have been challenged. Therefore, no counter-affidavit is required. Both the parties are directed to file their written submissions along with judgments they are relying on", the court ordered. Accordingly, the court listed the matter for further consideration on September 26.
Bench: Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna
Case Title: DCPCR v. Union of India & Others
10. [Asian Games 2023 trials] The Delhi High Court on Friday last week "reserved orders" in the plea filed by wrestlers Antim Panghal and Sujeet Kalkal over the exemption granted to Vinesh Phogat and Bajrang Punia for direct entry to Asian Games 2023 trials by the WFI ad-hoc. The bench said, "Heard. Reserved. Pronouncement tomorrow through VC by evening". While reserving the order, the court asked the ad-hoc panel running Wrestling federation of India (WFI) to file an affidavit by today evening that there is no record of a withdrawal of exemptions in a meeting of August 25, 2020. Court said that he will not deal with the issue of who is a better wrestler. "We will only see if the procedure has been followed or not", he added. The petition, moved through Advocate Hrishikesh Baruah and Akshay Kumar contended that the directive issued by the Indian Olympic Association (IOA) ad-hoc committee with regards to the two categories (men’s freestyle 65kg and women’s 53kg) be quashed and the exemption granted to Bajrang and Vinesh be set aside. The plea contended that the trials should be held in a "fair manner", without granting any exemption to any wrestler and the "whole process be videographed".
Please Login or Register
