Read Time: 01 hours
1. [Copyright Infringement] The Delhi High Court has recently issued summons to an Instagram handle namely ‘People of India’ (POI) in a copyright infringement suit filed by storytelling platform ‘Humans of Bombay’ (HOB). The suit seeks to restrain POI from appropriating the former’s “unique format of storytelling” and publishing the same to the public. The bench issued notice to the defendant, “POI Social Media Private Ltd”, in Humans of Bombay Stories Private Ltd’s application for interim relief. “In addition, ld. Counsel for the Plaintiff on the query relating to how this Court would have jurisdiction, submits that a number of subjects who were being interviewed by the Defendants are based out of Delhi. Let an affidavit to this effect be placed on record within one week. 21. List on 11th October, 2023 on top of the board”, the judge ordered. The plaintiff HOB filed the present suit seeking an injunction restraining infringement of copyright of its copyrighted content.
Bench: Justice Prathiba M. Singh
Case Title: Humans of Bombay Stories Pvt Ltd v. POI Social Media Pvt Ltd
Click here to read more
2. [National Litigation Policy] Noting that overwhelming majority of cases currently clogging the judicial system involve either the Central Government, State Governments, or public sector undertakings (PSUs), the Delhi High Court recently ordered the Centre to prepare a time-bound action plan for implementation of the ‘National Litigation Policy’. National Litigation Policy, which was conceived in October 2009 with the objective of bringing down the litigation from government agencies, has remained in the draft stage. The court was hearing a batch of appeals, stemming out from orders passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal as also the Trial Court qua a property dispute involving the Cement Corporation of India Limited, a public service undertaking. While deciding the matters on merits, the Court was deeply anguished by the approach adopted by the Indian Railways and Cement Corporation. Specifically, the fact that they resorted to "unfounded arguments and false assertions" raised serious concern, sufficient to agitate judicial conscience. A division bench noted, "More than a decade has passed since the discussion on the issue of a litigation policy commenced and it is unclear as to when the proposed framework or guidelines will be in place". “The government must prepare a time-bound action plan for implementation of the ‘National Litigation Policy’ or the guidelines that are under contemplation”, the bench said.
Bench: Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula
Case Title: Union of India v. Ms. Kiran Kanojia (a batch of connected matters)
3. [Simultaneous Bar Association Elections] In the plea filed by advocates pertaining to the issue of holding a “uniform election” in one day for all the Bar Associations in the national capital, the petitioners recently submitted before the Delhi High Court that the election process should be streamlined. At the onset of the hearing, the division bench suggested that the matter be referred to a three-judge bench. However, all the counsel unanimously objected to it. Counsel for both parties requested the division bench to decide the matter. Accordingly, the court posted the matter for further consideration on October 6. Notably, on September 6, the committee examining the feasibility of holding an election to all Bar Associations in the national capital on a single day had told the court that a meeting took place on September 5. The committee had sought two to three weeks' time for further deliberation.
Case Title: Lalit Sharma and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (another connected matter)
4. [WB Cattle Smuggling Case] The Delhi High Court recently granted bail to Manish Kothari, the chartered accountant of TMC leader Anubrata Mondal, in a money laundering case related to the alleged cattle smuggling racket across the India-Bangladesh border. The bench observed that allegations against the accused will be tested during the trial and his stand that he acted on the basis of information and record provided to him by his client could not be rejected outright. "In the facts and circumstances, the petitioner is admitted to bail on furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs 5 lakhs with a surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court", the court said in its order dated September 22. The single-judge bench noted that while the Enforcement Directorate (ED) claimed that the petitioner accused, currently in judicial custody, was “instrumental in projecting tainted money as untainted money”, his defence was that Mondal was shifting the blame on the petitioner only to save himself. This has to be tested during the course of the trial, the high court said. “Generally speaking, the professional would act on the instructions of his client. However, whether he has gone beyond his professional duty is something which is required to be seen and examined during the trial”, it opined. The judge said that the allegation against the present petitioner (Manish Kothari) was not that he had done something which was beyond his scope of profession i.e. indulging in some activities which were totally unconnected with the chartered accountancy.
Bench: Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma
Case Title: Manish Kothari v. Director of Enforcement Ministry of Finance Dept. of Revenue Headquarter Investigation Unit
5. [WB Mining Scam] The Delhi High Court has extended by a period of two weeks the interim bail of Gurupada Maji, an accused in a money laundering case linked to an alleged coal mining scam in West Bengal. Maji had sought an extension of interim bail on medical grounds. Senior Advocate N. Hariharan on behalf of Maji contended, “I am seeking extension of interim bail. While in custody he has developed a situation called Focal dystonia, which is a neurological condition that causes involuntary muscle contractions in one body part. There was radiating pain when he went to the hospital to get it checked…The treatment is being carried out because it is both neurological and has something to do with the Orthopedic part”. “Apart from that he was also having gastrointestinal infection, which has been cured”, he added. The bench on perusal of the status report said, “As per the report, petitioner had presented himself in the emergency department of Citizen Hospital on September 18 with complaint of severe nausea, vomiting, associated with severe headache, pain in the back of the neck, etc”. Taking note of the submissions, the court allowed extension of the interim bail by two weeks and clarified that no further extension would be given after this. “This court is of the opinion that the interim bail of the petitioner be extended by a period of two-weeks from today, making it clear that no further extension will be given", the court ordered.
Bench: Justice Jyoti Singh
Case Title: Gurupada Maji v. Directorate of Enforcement
6. [PM Modi Documentary] The Delhi High Court has issued a fresh notice to the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) on a plea by an NGO seeking damages, claiming its documentary "India: The Modi Question" casts a slur on the country's reputation and makes false and defamatory imputations against Prime Minister Narendra Modi and the Indian judiciary. Besides BBC (UK), the bench also issued fresh notice to BBC (India) on the plea filed by Gujarat-based NGO 'Justice On Trial'. During the hearing, the counsel for the NGO apprised the court that notices were issued to BBC (UK) and BBC (India) earlier but they could not be served. Advocate Siddharth Sharma, representing the NGO, sought more time to serve the notices to the defendants.The court posted the matter for further consideration on December 15, 2023. As per the petitioner NGO, Justice on Trial, the BBC (India) as the local operation office and BBC (UK) released a two-episode news documentary titled “India: The Modi Question” in January 2023. It contended that the said documentary/publication contains content that casts a slur on the reputation of the country and also makes false and defamatory imputations and insinuations against the Prime Minister of India, the Indian Judiciary, and the Indian criminal justice system.
Bench: Justice Sachin Datta
Case Title: Justice on Trial v. BBC (India) & Anr.
7. [Missing Indian Seafarer] The Delhi High Court has sought Central Government’s response in a plea to locate the missing Indian seafarer, namely Vikram Patel from a ship between India and Turkey. The bench issued notice to the Ministry of External Affairs and said that certain steps are crucial to be taken by the Ministry. Accordingly, the court listed the matter for hearing on February 2, 2024. The petition has been moved by the wife of the missing seafarer through Advocates Tanvi Dubey and Anukrit Gupta. The plea seeks specific directions to the Union of India to take cognizance of the search operation of Vikram Patel and to direct appropriate measures for conducting search at the Russia port, i.e., Vysotsk port and take appropriate steps to track his location. After sailing for roughly 6 months, Vikram’s wife received a call from Oceanonesm on August 11, 2023 stating that Patel is missing from the ship while the ship was sailing from Ust-Luga Anch, Russia to Mersin, Turkey. She was told that Patel was last seen by his colleagues on August 10.
Bench: Justice Subramonium Prasad
Case Title: Smt. Kamala Patel v. Union of India & Anr.
8. [Plea against Union Minister Smriti Irani] The Delhi High Court has said that it will hear arguments on October 19 on the maintainability of a plea challenging a trial court order that dismissed a petition which alleged Union minister Smriti Irani had misrepresented her educational qualifications before the Election Commission. During the hearing, Assistant Public Prosecutor (APP) Manoj Pant apprised the court that the petitioner had directly approached the High Court without going to the Sessions Court. On the contrary, the counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Sessions Court and the High Court have concurrent jurisdiction, and thus, the present revision petition is maintainable. Taking note of the submissions, the bench issued notice to the State and posted the matter for ‘arguments on maintainability’ on October 19. “Issue notice to State/respondent no. 1. Manoj Pant, additional public prosecutor accepts notice on behalf of State. List for arguments on maintainability on October 19”, the court said. The single-judge bench was hearing a plea of freelance writer Ahmer Khan challenging the trial court’s decision of October 18, 2016 whereby his complaint was dismissed on the ground that it was filed to “needlessly harass" Irani as she was a Union minister.
Bench: Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma
Case Title: Ahmer Khan v. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) & Anr.
9. [1997 Uphaar Cinema Fire] The Delhi High Court has issued notice in real estate tycoon Gopal Ansal’s plea seeking permission to travel to Bangkok. Ansal has been convicted in an evidence tampering case related to the 1997 Uphaar cinema fire incident. Ansal has sought permission to travel to Bangkok from September 28 to October 3, 2023, as per his undertaking before the court earlier. Senior Advocate Dayan Krishnan on behalf of the State submitted that he wants to file response to Ansal's application.Senior Advocate N. Hariharan appearing for Ansal submitted that the petitioner has to travel on September 28, and filing of the response will make it infructuous. The bench noted, “This is an application by the petitioner seeking permission to travel to Bangkok commencing from September 28 to October 3. Notice is accepted on behalf of the state”. However, after some arguments and after Hariharan took instructions from the petitioner, the court was apprised that the petitioner would reschedule his visit to Bangkok. The senior counsel also apprised the court that an additional affidavit would be filed providing the rescheduled itinerary in the present plea. Accordingly, the court posted the matter for further consideration on October 12, 2023.
Case Title: Gopal Ansal v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr
10. [Song 'Jalsa' from film Mission Raniganj] The Delhi High Court has refused to pass any interim order restraining the use of the song Jalsa by singer Satinder Pal Singh Sartaaj in an upcoming film, ‘Mission Raniganj’. The bench made the observation after Sartaaj agreed to deposit Rs. 25 lakh with the Court. “Subject to the said deposit being made, the prayer for interim injunction is rejected at this stage,” the court said. The court was hearing a suit filed by Saga Music Private Limited, which has sought a permanent injunction against Sartaaj and others from using the song in the Akshay Kumar-starrer movie. The Music company claimed that it owns the rights to the song owing to an agreement dated August 16, 2022. As per the plaintiff Saga Music Pvt. Ltd., it released the song ‘Jalsa' in 2014 on a commercial scale, and on 17th July 2018, an Assignment Agreement was executed by Sony Music in favour of Hardip Sidhu (defendant 2), who was based in the United Kingdom. Sidhu had acquired the Rights in the song. Again, the same was an exclusive and absolute assignment in terms of Clause 4 of the Assignment Agreement. In the meantime, Sartaaj held a concert at the Sydney Opera House in August 2022 wherein he sang a total of 19 songs, out of which he assigned the rights to 12 songs, including ‘Jalsa’ to Saga Music. “….this Copyright Assignment Agreement is described as an agreement for perpetuity and applicable to the entire universe. This agreement dated 16th August, 2022 also gave rights to the Plaintiff No. 2-Unisys Infosolutions Pvt. Ltd. even in the literary works, and declared that the Plaintiff No. 2 would be the author of the said songs henceforth”, Justice Singh noted.
Case Title: Saga Music Private Limited v. Satinder Pal Singh Sartaaj & Ors.
11. [Akasa Air] The Delhi High Court has held that actions against future infarctions by the defaulting pilots could not be issued at the present interim stage without first deciding the issue of jurisdiction. Court was dealing with a plea moved by Akasa Air against pilots who had resigned without serving the mandatory notice period. The bench said, “I have decided the interim application”. The court noted, “The petitioners at the outset have stated that they are not seeking any action against the 43 pilots who have already resigned from respondent (DGCA) and for the present in this petition are only seeking clarification of interim orders dated July 25, 2018; October 11, 2019 and a direction to DGCA to take appropriate action as per extant law for possible future infractions by existing employee pilots of the petitioner”. On the issue of clarity of the interim orders dated July 25, 2018 and October 11, 2019, the court opined that the orders were clear and unequivocal in as much as the said orders were conditional on the pilots and airlines duly complying with the terms of the contract. “There is no absolute restraint against the respondent from taking action as contended by respondent no. 1 and 2. To this extent, the court is in agreement with the submissions of the petitioner and rejects the submissions of the respondents IPJ and Federation of Indian Pilots (FIP)”, the court said.
Bench: Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
Case Title: SNV Aviation Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Directorate General of Civil Aviation & Anr.
12. [Coal Scam Case] The Delhi High Court has suspended the four-year sentence of former Rajya Sabha MP Vijay Darda, his son Devender Darda and businessman and Director of JLD Yavatmal Energy Pvt Ltd Manoj Kumar Jayaswal in a case related to irregularities in coal block allocation in Chhattisgarh. The bench allowed the pleas and suspended the sentence till the pendency of their appeals challenging their conviction and jail term in the case. The single-judge bench directed them not to leave the country without prior permission of the court concerned and not to directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case. “It is directed that the sentence imposed on the appellant shall remain suspended during the pendency of the present appeal, subject to his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- with two sureties of the like amount”, the court ordered.
Case Title: Vijay Darda v. CBI; Manoj Kumar Jayaswal v. CBI and Devendra Darda v. CBI
13. [Trademark Infringement] In a trademark infringement case between a German medical equipment manufacturer, VBM Medizintechnik GMBH, and an Indian entity, VBM India Co (VBMIC), the Indian defendant invoked Hindu Gods as inspiration for its trademark use. However, the Delhi High Court was unswayed by this defense and granted interim relief to the German company. The German company accused VBMIC of trademark infringement for using the mark 'VBM,' which it claimed stood for "Mr. Volker Bertram Medical." In contrast, VBMIC asserted that 'VBM' represented "Vishnu, Brahma, and Mahesh," referring to Hindu Gods. The bench granted interim relief to the German company, remarking that VBMIC may have "exposed himself to divine retribution" for invoking the holy trinity for "unholy ends." The court found the explanation of 'Vishnu, Brahma, Mahesh' to be unsupported by any corroborative evidence and too facile to pass legal muster.
Bench: Justice C Hari Shankar
Case Title: VBM Medizintechnik GMBH v. Geetan Luthra
14.[UAPA] The Delhi High Court recently reduced the fine imposed on militants of the banned Kangleipak Communist Party (“KCP”) on possibilities of reformation. Conduct of appellants while serving their sentence in jail and the financial condition of the family, were other considerations taken into account by the court, for relaxing the said penalty. “… it is the opinion of this Court that the fine imposed for each of the nine offences for which the appellants have been convicted be Rs. 1,000/- per offence (amounting to a total of Rs. 9,000/- for each appellant) and in default of payment thereof, SI for one month for each offence (amounting to a total of nine months in default thereof for each appellant). It is directed accordingly”, a division bench, while allowing the appeal said. The appellants were to serve 30 months of additional sentence in default of payment of fine of Rs. 39,000 each, which, as argued by the appellants, was excessive and more than 1/3rd of the substantive sentence of 7 years imposed on the appellants.
Bench: Justice Siddharth Mridul and Justice Anish Dayal
Case Title: Khoiram Ranjit Singh v. State
15. [Live-in relationship] The Delhi High Court has recently issued a noteworthy ruling, asserting that a live-in relationship between two consenting adults who are already married, albeit to different partners, is not a criminal offense, despite potential social disapproval. In a judgment delivered on September 13, the Court emphasized the distinction between societal moral judgments and legal criminal wrongdoing. Justice Sharma pointed out that moral objections from society and legal criminal violations are separate matters, and although some individuals may criticize live-in relationships between married individuals, many others may not find them objectionable. The court firmly stated that legal enforcement of moral values has not been legislated against and should not be the subject of any legal judgment. The High Court noted, "Live-in relationship between two consenting married adults, who are married to different partners, has not been made criminal or legislated against. While concluding that legal enforcement of morals has not been legislated against, and cannot be a subject matter of any legal morality preached through a judgment".
Case Title: S. Rajadurai v. State (NCT) of Delhi & Anr.
16. [FIR Quashing] In a unique ruling, the Delhi High Court has recently directed 24 individuals to engage in "basic cleaning work" at four police stations as a condition to quash a criminal case against them. Court instructed the individuals to divide themselves into four groups of six people each and perform cleaning duties at Mehrauli, Fatehpur Beri, Maidan Garhi, and Neb Sarai police stations. The High Court stated, "The said 24 persons shall be at liberty to decide amongst themselves as to the composition of each group of 6 persons and also the Police Station where each group shall undertake the aforesaid basic cleaning duty". The case stemmed from two First Information Reports (FIRs) filed at the Mehrauli police station, involving various sections of the Indian Penal Code, such as voluntarily causing hurt, culpable homicide not amounting to murder, and rioting. These charges arose from a scuffle between neighbors.
Bench: Justice Saurabh Banerjee
Case Title: Sagar & Ors. v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors.
17. [Divorce Decree on grounds of cruelty] The Delhi High Court recently held that separating a child from a father who never shows any neglect for the child is an extreme act of mental cruelty. The court was hearing an appeal against a divorce decree, granted on grounds of desertion and cruelty in favour of the respondent-husband. The plea of cruelty against the husband for being in an extra-marital affair was dismissed by the court stating that the same had been condoned by the appellant-wife when it first came into her knowledge and therefore could not be raised at the present stage. A division bench, while upholding the divorce decree dated 04.09.2018 on grounds of cruelty, observed, “Such conduct from an educated spouse cannot be expected and such complaints as made by her further proves her vengeance to bring down the respondent. Once vindictiveness has crept in and the appellant had marched on to the war path filed only complaints in the Department but also initiated various civil/legal cases since 2011, i.e., for about 12 years and has even alienated the daughter from the respondent, it leads to irresistible conclusion that various acts of cruelty have been committed towards the respondent.”
Bench: Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Neena Bansal Krishna
Case Title: X v. Y
18. [LOC restraining travel] The Delhi High Court recently altered the conditions of a look-out circular (LOC) issued against a Delhi-based entrepreneur, charged with penalties under the IT Act, 1961 and the Black Money Act, 2015. "Squandering of public money/siphoning off amounts taken as loans may justify the issuance of LOCs, however, the same cannot be resorted to in every case. Ordinary citizens ought not to be harassed or deprived of their liberty to travel merely due to participation in a business in their professional or non-executive capacity", court said. Court, while issuing directions for modification of the look-out circular and evaluating the merits of the case, observed, “Petitioner has deliberately concealed the existence of a company in Hong Kong, which was under his control. He did not divulge the details of the same despite being provided with repeated opportunities to do so. Furthermore, substantial transactions have been carried out in the bank account of the said Hong Kong based entity, which was also not revealed to the authorities… the Petitioner attempted to wriggle out of giving any explanation in respect of these transactions… Under these facts and circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that stringent conditions deserve to be imposed upon the Petitioner. The LOC debarring him from traveling can be converted into an intimation about the arrival/departure of the Petitioner in terms of Clause 6(I) of the Office Memorandum of 2021.”
Case Title: Prateek Chitkara v. Union of India
19. [Plea seeking mandatory FIRs against complaint filed by women against husband] The Delhi High Court on Wednesday sought the Central and State government’s respective responses on a plea seeking mandatory first information reports (FIR) in criminal complaints by women against their husbands alleging physical violence and other cognizable offences such as attempt to murder, grievous hurt. A division bench sought response from the Union of India, the Delhi Government and the Delhi Police. The bench said it will hear the matter next on November 22, 2023. The plea sought directions to modify the 2008 and 2019 Standing Orders to ensure that “express consent” from complainants is taken before reference to mediation and reconciliation. The plea was filed by four women who had suffered severe physical violence at the hands of their husbands for several years and had failed to get any recourse from the concerned authorities.
Case Title:Sangeeta & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
20. [Plea against Proliferation of Dummy Schools] The Delhi High Court has recently sought response of the Delhi government, Central Board of Secondary Education, Directorate General of Health Services, Delhi University (DU) and Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University (GGSIPU) on a plea against proliferation of dummy schools. A division bench said that the unchecked growth of 'dummy schools' is adversely affecting students who genuinely fulfil the 'local education' criterion and allows ineligible candidates to secure seats under the Delhi state quota. The bench was hearing a Pubic Interest Litigation (PIL) impugning the eligibility criterion applied by the Respondent Universities for grant of MBBS/ BDS seats under the Delhi State Quota (DSQ). As per the impugned criterion, only candidates who have completed their 11th and 12th grade education from a recognized school located in NCT of Delhi i.e. ‘Local Education’ are considered for grant of seats under the DSQ.
Bench: CJ Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula
Case Title: Dr. Rajeev Aggarwal v. Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
21. [Cricketer Kapil Dev] Former Indian cricket captain Kapil Dev and his wife have recently moved the Delhi High Court against the provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (PCA) Act that allows the destruction of stray dogs in lethal chambers or by such other methods as may be prescribed and the extermination or destruction of any animal under the authority of any law. A division bench on Tuesday granted time to the petitioners’ counsel to place on record certain judgments and posted the matter for hearing on October 13. The petitioners namely Kapil Dev, his wife Romi Dev and animal rights activist Anjali Gopalan have moved the High Court through Advocates Shraddha Deshmukh, Nikhil Singhvi, Shikhar Kishore, Bilal Ikram, Parth Aggarwal and Milind Raj Dixit. The plea has been filed on account of repeated instances of barbaric treatment meted out to animals showing the “most brutal and cruel face of humanity” and the “utter effete” response of law and the law enforcing agencies.
Case Title:Kapil Dev & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
22. [Toolkit Case] The Delhi High Court has "refused to modify" bail conditions of Disha A Ravi, who is facing prosecution for her alleged involvement in sharing a toolkit backing the farmers' protest in 2021. She had sought modification of bail condition of seeking prior permission of the trial court before travelling abroad. Court rejected Ravi's plea. Earlier, the plea had come up for hearing before Justice Sharma on August 21 morning. The judge after hearing submissions for the counsel of Ravi and Delhi police had “reserved order” in the plea and had said an order will be passed at 4 pm. Ravi's counsel had argued, "I need to travel abroad frequently and on short notices. I have already travelled abroad three times after passing of the bail order and even an LOC has been issued against me. The bail condition of taking prior permission of the trial court is causing me inconvenience. I have not violated any of the bail conditions”.
Case Title: Disha A. Ravi v. State (NCT of Delhi)
Please Login or Register
