Read Time: 01 hours
1. [Chayoos v. Grey Mantra Solutions] The Delhi High Court has granted an injunction against tea brands Teacurry and Just Vedic, the defendants in the case filed by Sunshine Teahouse Pvt Ltd, operating under the trade name 'Chaayos.' The court restrained Teacurry and Just Vedic from manufacturing their products with trade dress and packaging resembling that of Chaayos, the plaintiff. The bench ruled that the packaging and plastic containers used by Teacurry and Just Vedic bore a clear resemblance to that of Chaayos. The court observed that Chaayos had multiple trademark registrations for the mark 'CHAAYOS' and distinctive packaging, and it was evident that the defendants had imitated Chaayos' trade dress. The court further stated that the copying of listings and expressions by the defendants indicated a clear malicious intent to mimic the plaintiff. The court granted interim relief in favor of Chaayos, ordering the removal of Teacurry and Just Vedic product listings from the Amazon e-commerce platform due to their close resemblance to Chaayos' packaging.
Bench: Justice Prathiba M Singh
Case Title: Sunshine Teahouse Pvt Ltd v Grey Matra Solutions
Click here to read more
2. [Kerala Woman's plea to travel to Yemen] The Delhi High Court has recently sought the Central government's response to a petition seeking permission for the mother of a woman from Kerala, who is facing the death penalty in Yemen for the murder of a national, to travel to the country to save her daughter from gallows. The bench has granted two weeks' period for the Central government to submit a status report in response to this plea, filed by the petitioner, Premakumari. The petitioner has sought direction to allow her to travel to a foreign country, which had previously been restricted to Indian citizens by the Central government. The sole glimmer of hope for the woman, Nimisha, lies in the possibility of obtaining a pardon through the payment of "blood money," as dictated by Sharia law, and through diplomatic negotiations with the family of the victim, Talal Abdo Mahdi. This is not the first time that the petitioner has turned to the high Court for assistance. Previously, she had sought the Court's intervention in directing the Central government to facilitate diplomatic negotiations and communications with the victim's family on behalf of her daughter, Nimisha Priya, in an attempt to save her life.
Bench: Justice Subramonium Prasad
Case Title: Premakumari v. Union of India & Anr.
3. [LOC quashing against man] While quashing a look out circular (LOC) issued against a man who defaulted on loans for two cars, the Delhi High Court recently observed that the fundamental rights of a person cannot be taken away for non-payment of a loan. The bench opined that for non-payment of loans in respect of two cars, the fundamental rights of the petitioner could not be taken away, and, therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case at hand, the court was inclined to quash the LOC issued against the petitioner. Justice Prasad said that it is well settled that an LOC is opened against a person who is accused of a cognizable office under the Indian Penal Code to ensure his or her presence before the investigating authorities and before the court. “Since the petitioner was not appearing before the investigating authorities or before the courts, he was declared as a proclaimed person", he added. However, the judge noted that in the present case, the facts point out that the petitioner had appeared before the court, and the order declaring the petitioner as a proclaimed person no longer existed.
Case Title: Sushil Kumar Sehgal v. Union of India & Ors.
4. [Protection to couple after Nikah] The Delhi High Court has recently observed that the right to marry is an incident of human liberty. The bench said that the right to marry a person of one’s choice is not only underscored in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), but is also an integral facet of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees the right to life. Court observed so while dealing with a plea moved by a couple seeking protection from threats by family members of the woman. The judge said that in the present case, when the parties were two consenting adults who had chosen to willingly agree to join hands by way of marriage, there could hardly be any impediment on the way, be it from the parents or relatives or the society at large or the State. “There is nothing left for anybody to interfere in the lives of the petitioners”, he added. Noting that the petitioners were both major and well within their rights to marry each other, the court said that the family members of the woman could not be allowed to threaten the life and liberty of the couple.
Bench: Justice Saurabh Banerjee
Case Title: Md Nemat Ali and Another v. The State and Others
5. [ECI's reply in plea against I.N.D.I.A. acronym] The Election Commission of India (ECI), in its reply before the Delhi High Court has stated that it cannot regulate political alliances, in the plea seeking direction to opposition parties to prohibit using the acronym I.N.D.I.A. (Indian National Developmental Inclusive Alliance). “That the answering respondent [ECI] has been vested with the authority to register associations of bodies or individuals of a political party in terms of Section 29A of the Representation of People Act, 1951. Notably, political alliances are not recognised as regulated entities under the RP Act or the Constitution", the ECI said in its reply. “This reply is limited to the role of the answering respondent. This may not be construed as an expression of the answering respondent on the legality of the usage of the acronym I.N.D.I.A. by Respondent Nos. 4–29 in accordance with applicable laws", it added.
Bench: Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula
Case Title: Girish Bharadwaj v. Union of India Ministry of Home Affairs & Ors.
6. [Defamation Case] TMC MP Mahua Moitra has sought to delete as parties several media houses from her plea before the Delhi High Court against the circulation of alleged fake and defamatory content against her. Counsel for Moitra, while stating that he was not pressing any interim relief in the matter at this stage, told the bench that the lawsuit would only continue against two defendants: BJP MP Nishikant Dubey and Advocate Jai Anant Dehadrai. During the hearing today, Advocate Abhimanyu Bhandari, appearing for Dubey, submitted that Moitra had committed perjury and that she gave her login credentials to the businessman. The counsel for Moitra informed the court that she was not pressing for relief against the media houses at this stage. Counsel for ANI, a news agency, submitted, "Since Moitra is not pressing for relief against the media houses, she must amend the suit, as there are some averments against the media houses".
Bench: Justice Sachin Datta
Case Title: Mahua Moitra v. Nishikant Dubey and Ors.
7. [Plea against I.N.D.I.A. acronym] The Delhi High Court has granted two weeks' time to the Union Government to respond on the plea seeking direction to opposition parties to prohibit using the acronym I.N.D.I.A. (Indian National Developmental Inclusive Alliance). A division bench said "A reply needs to be filed; only after that can I pass an order". Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi appearing for the opposition parties submitted that the petition filed by activist Girish Bhardwaj, a 30-year-old businessman, was "totally non-maintainable". On the petitioner's allegations that opposition parties were using the national flag, the senior counsel said, "Who is using the national flag? If I do it, they can prosecute me under the National Emblems Act". The court noted that the ECI has filed its reply in the matter. "Shri Kurup, appearing for the Union of India, prays for two weeks to file a reply. Let a fresh notice be issued to the respondents unserved. The remaining served respondents are also directed to file their reply".
Bench: Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela
8. [Slow moving vehicles on expressways] While observing that an oversight could culminate in tragic consequences, including casualties, the Delhi High Court has directed the traffic police to ensure rigorous enforcement of the ban on slow-moving vehicles on expressways. A division bench observed that adherence to traffic norms was not merely a matter of law but a necessity in order to safeguard travelers as well as facilitate unhindered vehicular flow, and that the inherent vulnerability of slow-moving vehicles like two-wheelers, three-wheelers, and tractors amplify the risk on expressways. Emphasizing that road safety demands unwavering attention and collective efforts by authorities and the public, the court ordered, "Respondent No. 3 [Deputy Commissioner of Police, (Traffic), South-West] is directed to ensure rigorous enforcement of existing prohibitions.... pertaining to the movement of slow-moving vehicles on expressways, especially within the territorial confines of the NCT of Delhi." The bench added that regular monitoring and prompt corrective action should be taken by the authorities whenever deviations from the prescribed norms are observed.
Case Title: Yuvraj Francis v Union of India & Ors
9. [Contempt of Court] The Delhi High Court has sentenced one Naresh Sharma to six months of simple imprisonment for committing criminal contempt of court. This action was taken after Sharma had filed a petition before the court to impose the death penalty upon a sitting judge of the high court. A division bench found Naresh Sharma guilty of criminal contempt due to his use of derogatory language when referring to the judge who dismissed his initial petition. In a striking statement, Sharma even went so far as to label the judge a 'thief.' The court, in its judgment, observed that Sharma had exhibited no remorse for his actions and refused to offer an unconditional apology for his conduct.
Bench: Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Shalinder Kaur
Case Title: Court on its own motion v. Naresh Sharma
10. [Mental Cruelty] While observing that trivial irritations and loss of trust between married couples cannot be confused with mental cruelty, the Delhi High Court has refused to uphold a trial court order granting divorce on a husband's plea against his wife. The husband sought divorce on account of mental cruelty by the wife, alleging that she was not interested in living with him in the matrimonial home and wanted him to live with her at her parental home as "ghar jamai". The couple's marriage was solemnized in 1996 according to Hindu rites and customs, and they were blessed with a baby girl in 1998. The man had claimed that his wife used to desert him on one pretext or another, was only interested in running her coaching center, and even denied him sex. Dealing with the wife's appeal, a bench said that although denial of sex can be considered a form of mental cruelty when it is persistent, intentional, and for a considerable period of time, the court needs to "over-circumspect" while dealing with such a sensitive and delicate issue. Such allegations, the court said, could not be proved merely on the basis of vague and unspecific averments, particularly when the marriage was also duly consummated. The court held that the husband had failed to prove any mental cruelty on him and the present instance was "simply a case of normal wear and tear of the matrimonial bond" and the evidence indicated that the "discord was between the wife and her mother-in-law".
Bench: Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Manoj Jain
Case Title: Bhawana Sharma v. Shyam Sunder Sharma
11. [Ayushman Bharat Scheme] A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has been filed before the Delhi High Court seeking directions to include the Indian healthcare system, viz. Ayurveda, Yoga, and Naturopathy, in the Ayushman Bharat scheme. A division bench issued notice to the Ministry of Ayush, the Ministry of Finance, the Ministry of Home Affairs, the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, and the Delhi Government. The court sought their response on the PIL within eight weeks and listed the matter for consideration on January 29, 2024. The PIL filed by practicing lawyer Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay stated that India is a country rich in various great traditions of sages and has clear evidence of this in various available scriptures, Vedas, Puranas, Upanishads, etc. It stated that unfortunately, due to various policies created by foreign rulers and individuals with a colonial mindset, our cultural, intellectual knowledge, and scientific heritage have been systematically eroded.
Case Title: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India & Ors.
12. [Encroachment in Southern Ridge] The Delhi High Court has asked the forest authorities to take steps for removal of encroachment from the Southern Ridge or face contempt action as it raised an alarm over the existence of a "concrete jungle" there and the worsening air quality in the national capital. The bench while dealing with cases concerning the well-being of the city's Ridge area, asked, "What is happening in Southern Ridge? This is shocking. Three hundred hectares of land, all encroached...This is not acceptable. People in Delhi are wanting trees. Look at the level of pollution and the air quality”. Justice Singh also said that the court will not allow movement of motor vehicles through a road inside the Central Ridge, which houses an Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO) station, and asked the Center to come forward with a "viable solution" to access the premises. The court was hearing a contempt plea, on the basis of a news report published by the Times of India titled “Malcha Mahal in for royal makeover with boundary wall, iron grille and greening”.
Bench: Justice Jasmeet Singh
Case Title: Anjali College of Pharmacy and Science through its founder-cum-chairman Devendra Gupta v. Dr. Montu M Patel President, Pharmacy Council of India & Anr.
13. [Taj Mahal] The Delhi High Court has asked the Archeological Survey of India (ASI) to consider Hindu Sena's representation in a public interest litigation (PIL) petition seeking directions to the Central government to rectify the historical narrative surrounding the Taj Mahal. Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Chetan Sharma, appearing for the Center, said that he will look into the issue. "He has certainly brought out very historical facts that are very interesting", the ASG added. While asking the ASI to consider the Hindu Sena's representation made in January 2023, a division bench disposed of the PIL. The petition, filed by Surjit Singh Yadav, President of the Hindu Sena, through Advocates Shashi Ranjan Kumar Singh and Mahesh Kumar, contended that the Taj Mahal was originally the palace of Raja Man Singh and was later renovated by Mughal Emperor Shah Jahan. Yadav, the petitioner, sought specific directives from the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), the Central government, the National Archives of India, and the Uttar Pradesh government. He requested removal of historical inaccuracies concerning the construction of the Taj Mahal from textbooks and urged the ASI to conduct an investigation into the age of the structure and the existence of Raja Man Singh's palace.
Case Title: Surjt Singh Yadav v. UOI & Ors.
14. [Dowry Death] The Delhi High Court has recently expressed concern regarding the troubling recurrence of dowry death cases, shedding light on the deeply ingrained perception of women as a financial burden in various parts of the country.The court remarked that women's marriage prospects often take precedence from birth, overshadowing their educational and career aspirations.A single-judge bench made these observations in its order issued on October 31 while upholding a trial court's decision to convict a man under Sections 498A (subjecting a wife to cruelty) and 304B (dowry death) of the Indian Penal Code, sentencing him to ten years of rigorous imprisonment. Justice Sharma emphasized that these cases were not solely about male dominance and gender-based hostility. Instead, they often revealed intricate dynamics where women themselves participated in perpetuating hostility against their fellow women.The court further pointed out that the psychological stress and emotional trauma inflicted on women by their in-laws repeatedly demanding dowry and subjecting them to a life "akin to a slave" could be even more devastating than physical violence.
Bench: Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma
Case Title: Satpal Singh v. State
15. [Delhi Air Pollution] The Delhi High Court was apprised that the Supreme Court has issued directives to the states of Delhi, Punjab, Haryana, Uttar Pradesh, and Rajasthan, mandating the submission of affidavits outlining the measures taken to mitigate air pollution. This development followed the Supreme Court's observation that efforts to curb air pollution in the national capital were not manifesting effectively. The update was presented before a division bench consisting who were dealing with a suo motu petition initiated by the high court in 2015 concerning the deteriorating air quality in Delhi. Counsel appearing in the matter informed the bench that a similar plea filed in the top court, titled "M. C. Mehta v. Union of India & Ors." (originating in 1985), was scheduled for November 7. Consequently, the counsels requested an adjournment for the high court's suo motu case. Accordingly, the high court listed the suo motu plea for January 11, 2024
Case Title: Court on its own motion (Air Pollution) v. Union of India & Ors.
16. [Rape Case] The Delhi High Court has recently underscored a well-established legal principle that the breakdown of a relationship cannot serve as the basis for filing a First Information Report (FIR) under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which pertains to the offence of rape. While granting anticipatory bail to the man, the bench said that the allegations in the FIR do not suggest that the accused had no intention to marry the woman and had made a false promise of marriage from the beginning. The woman had filed an FIR accusing the man of having physical relations with her on the false pretext of marrying her. She alleged that after getting engaged to the accused, his family started demanding dowry, and when her father refused to provide money, the accused began avoiding her and refused to marry her. On the contrary, the counsel for the accused contended that the marriage was called off because the woman and her family did not disclose her medical ailments and that the FIR was lodged to harm his career. The judge said that the petitioner, being a government employee, would suffer “irreparable loss” and his career would be ruined if he were incarcerated in a false and frivolous case. “The petitioner has roots in society and would not flee from justice”, it added.
Bench: Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain
Case Title: Sushant Kumar v. The State
Please Login or Register
