Important Judgments of Delhi High Court (2023) - Legal Bites Year Update

Legal Bites brings you a roundup of Important decisions of the Delhi High Court (2023), which played a significant role. It will help the readers to remember all legal and current updates of 2023 pertaining to the Delhi High Court in the most efficient and easy way.

Important Judgments of Delhi High Court (2023) - Legal Bites Year Update

1. Ultimatum of 8 weeks given by Delhi High Court to ECI for deciding on the matter regarding Rahul Gandhi’s ‘false and vilifying speech’

On 21st December 2023, in the case of Bharat Nagar v. Union of India, the Delhi High Court asked the Election Commission of India to expedite the time that they are taking to examine the matter whereby Rahul Gandhi has made certain statements in his speech which are not in good taste. The division bench of Delhi High Court disposed of the writ petition and also directed ECI to quickly give its decision in the matter within 8 weeks at most.

2. The ‘N’ mark of New Balance Athletics Inc. has been declared a ‘well-known mark’ for footwear

On 12th December 2023, in the case of New Balance Athletics Inc. v. Jitender Kumar, the Delhi High Court passed an order through which permanent injunction has been granted to restrain the defendants from doing any of the following such as manufacturing, selling/ offering for sale, displaying, advertising, marketing, whether directly or indirectly, through online modes of selling or physical, of goods that contain marks as registered by the Defendant 1. In addition to that, the court has also declared that the shaded ‘N’ mark which belongs to the plaintiff is its ‘well-known mark’ and that the same thereby belongs to the said plaintiff.

3. Important to explain the pros and cons of medical termination of pregnancy in cases of rape in any of the languages Hindi or English

On 4th November 2023, in the case of Minor L Thr Guardian J v. State & Anr., it was said that medical termination of pregnancy involves repercussions which are both mental and physical and thus before conducting such procedure in cases where pregnancy is a result of rape, it is important to explain to the said victim the pros and cons of the said termination.

4. Dismissal of an application filed in Delhi High Court to avail benefits of Section 14 of the Limitation Act

On 12th December 2023, in the case of U.P Jal Vidyut Nigam Ltd. v. C.G. Power & Industrial Solution Ltd, the Delhi High Court stated that there has been an utter lack of due diligence as prosecution as per petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has been rejected two times. About Section 14 of the Limitation Act, the court stated that it is imperative to note whether the appellant has put on record the evidence to prove that he has instituted a suit that has already been instituted with due diligence.

5. John Doe injunction order passed for restraining the use of ‘WOW MOMO’

On 20th December 2023, in the case of Wow Momo Foods Private Limited v. Ashok Kumar, the Delhi High Court stated that the entities involved in the said case are unknown entities that are pretending to be the authorised franchise agents of the company WOW Momo Private Limited. However, it is pertinent to note that there are no franchisees of the said company. Thus, the Delhi High Court passed an interim injunction of John Doe's nature restraining the unknown defendants from using, advertising, directly or indirectly dealing in the trade mark, or the domain names having the mark WOWMOMO.

6. Reservation of verdict by Delhi High Court in the matter of Mahua Moitra’s defamation matter

On 20th December 2023, in the case of Mahua Moitra v. Nishikant Dubey, which is a defamation case involving Mahua Moitra and an Advocate along with Nishikant Dubey, the Delhi High Court has reserved its judgment. A complaint had been made by BJP MP Nishikant Dubey in the Lok Sabha, alleging that she had raised questions on democracy and bribery in the House post herself demanding and accepting bribes, gifts and cash from a big firm. In response, the All-India Trinamool Congress Party member Mahua Moitra went to court with a defamation case.

7. No proceedings under the RTI Act for disputes relating to the correctness of the information that has been provided under the said Act

On 6th December 2023, in the case of Narendra Tyagi v. CPIO, the Delhi High Court stated that the CPIO (Central Public Information Officer) is not under any obligation to check whether the information that he is providing is valid or not. He is only under the obligation that he has to provide all the information that is available to him and is within his access. The said judgement was passed by the Division Bench comprising Manmohan, ACJ., and Mini Pushkarna.

8. Costs imposed on frivolous petition filed for claiming property rights in Agra, Delhi and Gurgaon

On 18th December 2023, in the case of Kunwar Mahender Dhwaj Pratap Singh v. Union of India, the Delhi High Court imposed a fine of Rs. 10,000 on the petitioner who claimed that he is the heir of ‘Beswan Family’ and thus has the right to claim the property comprising of United Province of Agra running between river Yamuna and Ganga from Agra to Meerut, Aligarh, Bulandshahr including, 65 revenue estates of Delhi Gurgaon and Uttarakhand. Single judge bench comprising of Subramonium Prasad, J. stated that the said petition is the depiction of how power can be abused and thus disposed of it and also imposed a fine of Rs. 10,000.

9. Cancellation of Copyright of ‘Arras the Boss’ in petition suit filed by perfume company

On 8th December 2023, in the case of Hugo Boss Trade Mark Management GMBH & Co. Kg. v. Sandeep Arora, the Delhi High Court held that the respondent’s registration was nothing but an entry which had been wrongly made and maintained in the register. This led to the implied cancellation of the copyright registration of the ‘ARRAS THE BOSS’ mark from the Register of Copyrights. The petition had been filed by the perfume company Hugo Boss Trade Mark Management GMBH and Co. under Section 50 of the Copyright Act, 1957 for rectification of the copyright register.

10. Decree passed by Delhi High Court barring the use of the mark ‘AJJ TAK’ or similar domain names

On 20th November 2023, in the case of Living Media India Limited v. www.news-aajtak.co.in, the Delhi High Court passed an order against the defendants for using marks similar to ‘AAJ TAK’ for instance ‘AB TAK’ to refrain from creating deceptive similarity. The court stated that in consonance with the report presented on 20th November, the use of the mark ‘AAJ TAK’ has been disabled on all channels, and the domain names have been either suspended, locked or blocked, the suit shall stand decreed.

11. Order to pay costs to Educomp Solutions by Delhi Government upheld by Delhi High Court

On 15th December 2023, in the case of GNCTD v. EduComp, the Delhi High Court stated that the order made by the Sole Arbitrator and as approved by the District Court was right and refused to interfere in the same. The case was regarding a contract that the Directorate of Education under the aegis of Delhi Government, had floated and the same had been provided to Educomp Solutions, which is a provider of technology-based educational products and services. The court agreed that the respondent had been kept in limbo and even after initiation of RTI proceedings the same was not resolved. Thus, costs imposed on the Delhi Government are appropriate and were thus upheld.

12. Proceedings under the FERA Act quashed for violation of the natural justice principle

On 16th October 2023, in the case of Shilpi Modes v. Directorate of Enforcement, the court held that Section 18 (2) and (3) would attract proceedings under Section 56 of the FERA Act. However, the same was not adhered to in the said case. There is no explanation as to how and from where the ED obtained this correct address of the petitioner while issuing the demand notice. Thus the same was quashed and the appeal was allowed.

13. The reasonable period for passing of orders by the Patent Office post oral hearings cannot go beyond 3-6 months

On 8th December 2023, in the case of Procter and Gamble Co. v. Controller of Patents and Designs, the Delhi High Court stated that the timelines that have been indicated in the Patents Act, 1970 read along with the Patent Rules of 2003 are a clear reflection of the legislature’s intent. The same thereby indicated that no delay is meant to be caused in the process of granting patents and thus, even though a ‘reasonable period’ has been written, the same must not go beyond 3-6 months.

14. No violation of Unified Building Byelaws for Delhi, 2016 or Master Plan for Delhi-2021 by charging of fees by Pacific Mall

On 21st November 2023, in the case of Pacific Development Corpn. Ltd. v. South Delhi Municipal Corpn. The Delhi High Court opined that since there is no provision in the said laws discussing the issue of charging fees or controlling terms as per which buildings are used, the charging of parking fees by the Pacific Metro Mall in Delhi cannot be said to have infringed any law.

15. No Words commonly used in English aren't registered, even when assembled as 'phrases.'

On 11th December 2023, in the case of Institute of Directors v. Worlddevcorp Technology and Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd., the Delhi High Court stated the following, as quoted:

“Commonly used words, or a non-distinctive combination of commonly used words, cannot be monopolised by any one person, to disentitle the rest of the world to the use thereof.”

The court thus denied granting exclusivity to the plaintiff over the words ‘IOD’ (Institute of Directors).

16. Refusal to claim copyright to Humans of Bombay for images, videos, photographs

On 18th September 2023, in the case of Humans of Bombay Stories Pvt. Ltd. v. POI Social Media Pvt. Ltd. & Anr Ltd., the court stated that no copyright can be claimed either by Humans of Bombay or by People of India for the images, videos and photographs as both of them are platforms for storytelling. As per the court, the case involved the classic idea-expression dichotomy. Thus, upholding the ideology that no copyright can be granted for an ‘idea’ the same was denied.

17. Refusal to grant bail to doctor involved in medical equipment conspiracy

On 14th December 2023, in the case of Manish Rawat v. Central Bureau of Investigation, the Delhi High Court stated that the common public views doctors as ‘next to god’ and thus the mastermind of the medical equipment conspiracy cannot be treated with normal. The crime thus committed is grave and thus he was denied bail in the said case. The ones who have been granted bail are the middlemen who helped the mastermind in committing the said crime at Safdarjung Hospital.

18. Children’s rooms in District Court were ordered to remain open on weekends to permit visitation

On 12th December 2023, in the case of Samrat Singh Rawat v. Poonam Rawat, the Delhi High Court opined that if the children’s rooms are kept open on weekends, then a party to litigation would have the opportunity to visit their children on second Saturdays and Sundays as well.

19. Extradition of Indian national to Oman approved by Delhi High Court for committing murder

On 24th November 2023, in the case of Majibullah Mohammed Haneef v. Union of India, the Delhi High Court said that the level of proof that is required for approving the extradition of a person is not as high as that which is required for convicting a person. Thus, instead of examining the proofs as presented to the court, it permitted the said extradition.

20. Restrain on using ‘Oykaa’ as a brand name for cosmetic and healthcare products as it is deceptively similar to 'Nykaa'

On 12th October 2023, in the case of FSN E-Commerce Ventures Ltd. v. Pintu Kumar Yadav, the Delhi High Court held the brand name ‘Oykaa’ to be deceptively similar to the brand ‘Nykaa’ and thus restrained its usage by the said defendant. The court stated that from the name and the website it can be understood that there is a clear attempt by the defendant to imitate and copy the plaintiff and thereby make wrongful gains from its goodwill.