Daily Judgments of 01 July
Delhi High Court
C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT)-439/2022
Parties: KROLL INFORMATION ASSURANCE,LLC vs THE CONTROLLER GENERAL OF PATENTS, DESIGNS AND TRADEMARKS AND ORS
Judge(s): JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL
Area of Law: Intellectual Property Law
The High Court upheld the Controller's decision to refuse the patent application under Section 3(k) of the Patents Act, which excludes "computer programmes per se" and "algorithms" from patentability. The key points are:
1. The proposed amendments to the claims were found to be within the scope of Section 59 of the Act, as they narrowed down the scope of the original claims and were in the nature of explanation.
2. However, the Court held that the invention claimed in the patent application relates to a computer program and algorithm for searching within a peer-to-peer network using specific keywords, without demonstrating any technical advancement or effect on the underlying hardware.
3. Relying on the principles laid down in previous judgments, the Court held that for a software invention to be patentable, it must contribute to a specific and credible technical effect or enhancement beyond mere general computing processes. In the present case, the invention was found to be a mere sequence of instructions without any technical advancement.
4. Therefore, the Court upheld the Controller's decision to refuse the patent application under Section 3(k) of the Act, without examining the issue of inventive step under Section 2(1)(j).
CRL.A.-818/2013
Parties: NOIDA DHATU PVT LTD vs UDAI CONTINENTALS & ANR
Judge(s): JUSTICE SHALINDER KAUR
Area of Law: Criminal Law
The High Court held that the Appellant failed to establish that the Respondent No. 2 was the proprietor of Respondent No. 1, the firm that issued the dishonored cheque. The evidence showed the actual proprietor was Ms. Sarika Singh Kuchhawaha, who was not made a party to the complaint. The court found that under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, only the proprietor of a proprietorship firm can be held liable, and the Appellant's case against Respondent No. 2 lacked foundation. The judge upheld the trial court's acquittal of Respondent No. 2.
CS(COMM)-715/2024
Parties: M/S PRODUCTS AND IDEAS (INDIA) PVT. LTD vs NILKAMAL LIMITED AND ORS
Judge(s): JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL
Area of Law: Intellectual Property Law
The High Court held that the plaintiff failed to make out a prima facie case for grant of interim injunction against the defendants. The court found that the defendant no. 5 is the prior adopter and user of the "STELLA" and "STELLADEXIN" marks in China since 2002, and has been selling its products bearing these marks in India since 2013, prior to the plaintiff's use or registration. Under Section 34 of the Trade Marks Act, the defendant no. 5's prior continuous use in India entitles it to a defense against the plaintiff's trademark infringement claims. Further, the defendant no. 2 is an authorized re-seller of the defendant no. 5's genuine products, so its sale of these products cannot amount to trademark infringement under the principle of international exhaustion under Section 30(3) of the Trade Marks Act. Accordingly, the court vacated the earlier ex parte ad interim injunction order and allowed the defendants to continue selling goods under the disputed marks in India.
RFA(OS)(COMM)-11/2025
Parties: AMAZON TECHNOLOGIES INC vs LIFESTYLE EQUITIES CV & ANR.
Judge(s): JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR, JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL
Area of Law: Intellectual Property Law
The main legal points and how the court decided on them:
1. The High Court granted a complete stay of the impugned judgment against Amazon Tech, which had awarded damages of ₹336.02 crores in favor of Lifestyle, without requiring Amazon Tech to deposit any part of the decretal amount.
2. The court found that there were no pleadings to support the massive claim for damages against Amazon Tech, which was enhanced from the original ₹2 crores to ₹3780 crores without amending the plaint.
3. The court held that there were no sustainable findings of infringement or complicity by Amazon Tech in the use of the allegedly infringing logo by Cloudtail. The court found errors in the impugned judgment's interpretation of the license agreement between Amazon Tech and Cloudtail.
4. The court also found issues with the proceedings being conducted entirely in the absence of Amazon Tech, despite lack of proper service of summons on it.
RFA(OS)(COMM)-22/2019
Parties: M/S CROCS INC USA vs M/S BATA INDIA & ORS
Judge(s): JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR, JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL
Area of Law: Intellectual Property Law
The High Court held that the suits filed by Crocs Inc USA were maintainable, as a registered design can constitute a trade dress which can form the basis of a passing off action, even if the entirety of the design is registered under the Designs Act. The court disagreed with the lower court's finding that a passing off action cannot be based on a registered design, and held that as long as the elements of the design are not merely used as a trademark but as part of a larger trade dress, the cause of action for passing off can lie. The court also noted that the same facts and evidence could form the basis for both a design infringement claim and a passing off claim. The appeals filed by Crocs were therefore allowed, and the matters were remanded to the lower court for further proceedings.
W.P.(C)-373/2024
Parties: GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS vs NISHA
Judge(s): JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR, JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL
Area of Law: Service Law
The Court held that the OBC certificate dated 2 January 2013 provided by the respondent Jyoti did not conform to the requirements in the vacancy notice, as it was not issued based on an earlier OBC certificate of a family member from the GNCTD. The court relied on its previous decision in Priyanka, which held that such a requirement was reasonable and binding on the candidates.
In the case of the respondent Nisha, the court found that the OBC certificate she provided did conform to the requirements in the advertisement, and therefore she was entitled to be treated as an OBC candidate. The court rejected the argument that circulars issued by the GNCTD after the advertisement should be applied retrospectively.
The court quashed the Tribunal's order in Jyoti's case but affirmed the Tribunal's order in Nisha's case. The case of Jyoti was distinguished from Rishabh Malik, where the OBC certificate had expressly stated that the candidate's caste was recognized as OBC by the GNCTD.
RFA(OS)(COMM)-8/2023
Parties: MODI-MUNDIPHARMA PVT. LIMITED vs SPECIALITY MEDITECH PVT. LTD. & ANR.
Judge(s): JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR, JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL
Area of Law: Intellectual Property Law
The main legal points and how the court decided them:
1. The court upheld the finding that the appellant's (Modi-Mundipharma's) suit was not barred by delay and laches.
2. The court held that the appellant, as the registered proprietor of the "CONTIN family of marks", was entitled to an injunction against the respondents' use of the mark "FEMICONTIN", as it was found to infringe the appellant's registered "FECONTIN-F" mark and also amounted to passing off.
3. However, the court rejected the appellant's claim for an absolute injunction against any third party using "CONTIN" as part of a trademark, even though the appellant was the registered proprietor of the "CONTIN" mark. In summary, the court largely ruled in favour of the appellant, granting an injunction against the respondents' use of "FEMICONTIN" but rejecting the appellant's claim for an absolute monopoly over the use of "CONTIN" as part of any trademark.
W.P.(C)-9994/2024
Parties: NAND LAL LUHAR AND ORS vs WESTERN RAILWAY AND ORS
Judge(s): JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR, JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL
Area of Law: Service Law
The High Court held that the Railway Recruitment Cell's identification of certain posts as suitable only for candidates with low vision, and not for completely blind candidates, was not illegal or contrary to the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. The court found that the identification of suitable posts under Section 33 of the Act was distinct from the exercise of reservation under Section 34, and that no less meritorious candidate was appointed against the posts identified as suitable for blind or low vision candidates. The court dismissed the petitioners' challenge but granted them liberty to seek the benefit of a later Railway Board circular that may allow for diversion of unfilled vacancies.
W.P.(C)-1941/2025
Parties: UNION OF INDIA THROUGH MINISTRY OF TOURISM vs MS. PROMILA SAWHNEY
Judge(s): JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR, JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL
Area of Law: Service Law
The High Court held that Promila Sawhney is entitled to the gratuity of US $23,879.94 from the Union of India (UOI). The main dispute was whether Promila is entitled to interest on the delayed payment of gratuity.
The High Court found that Promila is entitled to interest on the delayed payment of gratuity, as terminal benefits are not a bounty and delayed payment is unconscionable. However, the High Court had reservations about the Tribunal's decision to restrict the interest to 1.5% per annum and up to August 2019 only.
The High Court issued notice to the UOI in Promila's writ petition (W.P.(C) 8244/2024) to consider the issues raised by her regarding the rate and period of interest.
W.P.(C)-12604/2022
Parties: RANI SINGH vs GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.
Judge(s): JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR, JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL
Area of Law: Service Law
The High Court upheld the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal to dismiss the writ petition filed by Rani Singh seeking family pension on the ground that her husband Jiwan Kumar Singh, a former sub-inspector of the Delhi Police, was presumed dead after remaining missing for over seven years.
The court found that the dismissal order passed against Jiwan under the Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980, was valid as the Disciplinary Authority was satisfied that it was not reasonably practicable to hold a regular departmental inquiry against him since he had absconded. The court also held that service of the dismissal order on the petitioner, as Jiwan's wife, was sufficient as he was untraceable.
Consequently, the court ruled that Jiwan's entire past service stood forfeited under the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, and the petitioner was not entitled to any family pension. The writ petition was therefore dismissed.
FAO(OS) (COMM)-151/2023
Parties: VIP INDUSTRIES LTD vs CARLTON SHOES LTD & ANR.
Judge(s): JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR, JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL
Area of Law: Intellectual Property Law
The main legal points and the court's decision are:
1. The court found that as VIP and CSL both have registrations of the CARLTON mark in Class 18, neither can maintain an infringement action against the other under Section 28(3) of the Trade Marks Act.
2. Regarding passing off, the court held that VIP did not establish trans-border reputation of the CARLTON mark prior to 2004 when it commenced use in India. However, CSL was able to prove prior user and goodwill of the CARLTON mark in India from 2003, before VIP's use.
3. The court upheld the Single Judge's decision to injunct VIP from using the CARLTON mark for goods in Class 18, as CSL had established priority of use and goodwill in India, even though the marks may have been used for different goods (handbags vs luggage) by CSL and VIP.
CM(M)-1065/2022
Parties: NIMISHA BHAGAT vs RASHI MISRA
Judge(s): JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA
Area of Law: Civil Law
The High Court allowed the petitioner's appeal and directed the trial court to permit the petitioner to amend the plaint as prayed for. The court held that the trial court had erred in dismissing the amendment application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The High Court noted that the amendments sought were to incorporate the correct dates of the loan transactions, which the petitioner claimed were inadvertently not mentioned in the original plaint. The court stated that pre-trial amendments are to be allowed liberally, and the respondent would not be prejudiced as she would have an opportunity to rebut the amendments. The High Court further observed that the trial court's findings that the amendments were an afterthought and not necessary for the effective adjudication of the dispute were contradictory and without any basis.
BAIL APPLN.-1322/2025
Parties: SHRI AMRIT PAL SINGH vs DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT
Judge(s): JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA
Area of Law: Criminal Law
The High Court dismissed the applicant's anticipatory bail application, holding that the allegations against the applicant's company, M/s Broway Group Ltd., pertain to grave economic offences involving substantial international money transfers allegedly carried out through forged documentation and layered transactions. The court found that the applicant, who is the sole director of the company, has failed to rebut the statutory presumption under Section 24 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) and discharge the burden mandated under Section 45. The court noted the applicant's sustained non-cooperation and evasion of the investigation, and concluded that custodial interrogation may be warranted to ascertain his role in the alleged money laundering operation. The court held that the twin conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA were not satisfied, and the premature grant of bail would impede the investigation and compromise the statutory objectives of the PMLA.
O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.)-606/2024
Parties: M/S VIVA INFRAVENTURE PVT. LTD. vs NEW OKHLA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Judge(s): JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH
Area of Law: Arbitration Law
The High Court held that the exclusive jurisdiction clause in the contract, which conferred jurisdiction on the courts at Gautam Budh Nagar for any suit or application relating to the enforcement of the arbitration clause, should prevail over the sole arbitrator's unilateral designation of Delhi as the seat of arbitration.
The court relied on precedents that emphasized the need to respect the parties' agreement on exclusive jurisdiction, and held that the arbitrator cannot bypass such a contractual provision without a specific challenge by the parties. The court dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 29A(5) of the Arbitration Act for extension of the arbitrator's mandate, on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction of the Delhi courts.
O.M.P.(I) (COMM.)-397/2024
Parties: BELVEDERE RESOURCES DMCC vs OCL IRON AND STEEL LTD & ORS.
Judge(s): JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH
Area of Law: Arbitration Law
The High Court held that there was a valid arbitration agreement between the parties based on the exchange of emails and WhatsApp communications, despite the formal SCoTA contract not being executed. However, the court found that it lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain the section 9 petition, as the cause of action did not arise within the jurisdiction of the Delhi court and the respondent did not have a place of business within the court's jurisdiction.
Even on merits, the court held that the petitioner's claim for damages was an unliquidated claim that did not amount to a 'debt' until adjudicated upon by a competent court. The court also found that the conditions for granting interim relief under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the CPC were not satisfied. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, with the court clarifying that the observations were only for deciding the present petition and would not affect the final arbitration proceedings.
C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT)-60/2024
Parties: DONG YANG PC, INC vs CONTROLLER OF PATENTS AND DESIGNS
Judge(s): JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA
Area of Law: Intellectual Property Law
The High Court set aside the order of the Controller of Patents and Designs which had rejected the appellant's patent application for a 'Vertical Rotary Parking System' on the ground of lack of inventive step. The Court held that the Controller's finding that the appellant's invention was merely a workshop modification of the prior art document D-5 (the appellant's own prior patent) was not tenable.
The Court noted that simplicity does not defeat patentability, and even simple inventions can involve technical advancements warranting patent protection. The Court directed the Controller to re-examine the patent application afresh, granting the appellant a hearing and considering the technical evidence submitted by the appellant to demonstrate the advantages of its invention over the prior art. The matter was remanded to the Controller to be decided by an officer other than the one who had passed the earlier order.
O.M.P. (COMM)-125/2025
Parties: NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA (NHAI) vs SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD AND UNION BANK OF INDIA LTD & ANR.
Judge(s): JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH
Area of Law: Arbitration Law
The High Court upheld the Arbitral Award, rejecting the petitioner's challenges. The court held that the Concession Agreement formed part of the Escrow Agreement and Substitution Agreement, and the Arbitral Tribunal had the jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute regarding the non-deposit of the Termination Payment in the Escrow Account. The court further affirmed the Tribunal's finding that the Independent Engineer could not withhold or keep the Provisional Completion Certificate in abeyance once it had been issued, as the Concession Agreement did not provide for such a provision. Additionally, the court found no grounds to interfere with the Tribunal's calculation of the Termination Payment as per the formula in the Concession Agreement.
O.M.P. (COMM)-83/2024
Parties: RAM KAWAR GARG vs BAJAJ CAPITAL INVESTOR SERVICES LIMITED NOW NEW NAME IS JUST TRADE SECURITIES LIMITED & ORS.
Judge(s): JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH
Area of Law: Arbitration Law
The High Court set aside the Appellate Arbitral Award dated 31.07.2015, finding that it was passed beyond the legally mandated time limits prescribed under the NSE Bye-Laws and SEBI Circulars. The court held that the timelines for issuing the Appellate Award are mandatory, and the non-compliance with these timelines renders the award void and violative of public policy under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. The court did not need to examine the merits of the petitioner's factual contentions, as the Appellate Award was set aside solely on the ground of delay in issuing the award.
O.M.P. (T) (COMM.)-23/2025
Parties: ROSHAN REAL ESTATES PVT LTD vs GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI
Judge(s): JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH
Area of Law: Arbitration Law
The High Court allowed the petition and terminated the mandate of the appointed arbitrator, Mr. B.B. Dhar, under Section 14(1)(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The court found that Mr. B.B. Dhar's past professional relationship with the petitioner as a supervising authority violated the independence and impartiality requirements under Section 12(5) read with Entry 1 of the Seventh Schedule of the Act. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the court held that such a past relationship can create a reasonable apprehension of bias, which is impermissible. The court further noted that the respondent had previously withdrawn Mr. B.B. Dhar's appointment as arbitrator in another case on similar grounds. The court has appointed Ms. Justice Rekha Palli (Retired Judge Delhi High Court) as the new sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties.
MAT.APP.(F.C.)-100/2024
Parties: HIMANI @ MONIKA GOYAL vs ASHISH GOYAL
Judge(s): JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA, JUSTICE RENU BHATNAGAR
Area of Law: Family Law
The High Court upheld the decision of the Family Court to grant a decree of divorce to the husband on the ground of cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The court found that the wife's conduct, including making unsubstantiated allegations of dowry demands and filing false criminal complaints against the husband, had caused him immense mental agony and rendered it unreasonable for him to continue the marriage.
W.P.(C)-4689/2008
Parties: GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & OS vs UDAI SINGH
Judge(s): JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA, JUSTICE RENU BHATNAGAR
Area of Law: Service Law
The High Court held that the dismissal of the respondent, Udai Singh, a constable in the Delhi Police, from service was valid. The court found that the respondent had remained unauthorized and willfully absent from duty for a total of 1216 days between 1994-1998, without intimating or seeking prior approval from the competent authority, which amounted to grave misconduct. The High Court disagreed with the Central Administrative Tribunal's order, which had quashed the dismissal and directed reinstatement of the respondent. The High Court concluded that the penalty of dismissal was not disproportionate in the present case, considering the respondent's antecedents as a habitual absentee, and accordingly quashed the Tribunal's order, upholding the dismissal.
LPA-251/2025
Parties: M/S. SAWHNEY RUBBER INDUSTRIES vs WORKMEN
Judge(s): JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA, JUSTICE RENU BHATNAGAR
Area of Law: Labor Law
The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by M/s. Sawhney Rubber Industries, upholding the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal in favor of the workmen. The court found that the industrial dispute was properly espoused by a significant group of 378 workmen, who collectively raised a common grievance against the employer.
On the issue of designations, the court upheld the Tribunal's findings that the workmen were entitled to the designations they claimed, based on the nature of work performed by them. The court noted that the employer's own witness had acknowledged the specialized nature of work, undermining the employer's claim that all workmen were unskilled.
The court reiterated the limited scope of interference in a Letters Patent Appeal, stating that the findings of fact by the Industrial Tribunal are entitled to deference unless shown to be perverse or unsupported by evidence. The court found no error of law in the Impugned Judgment and dismissed the appeal.
CS(COMM)-1222/2018
Parties: COMMUNICATION COMPONENTS ANTENNA INC. vs ACE TECHNOLOGIES CORP. AND ORS.
Judge(s): JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE
Area of Law: Intellectual Property Law
The High Court held that the plaintiff has made out a prima facie case of patent infringement against the defendants, which has been upheld by the courts previously. However, the defendants, being foreign entities, do not have significant assets in India to satisfy a potential decree for damages.
Considering the precarious financial condition of the main defendant and the risk of the plaintiff being unable to recover the damages if a final decree is passed in its favor, the court exercised its inherent powers under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to direct the defendant to furnish a bank guarantee or fixed deposit of 25% of the claimed damages of Rs. 1160 crores to secure the plaintiff's interests during the pendency of the suit.
The court noted that this is a rare and exceptional case where granting such interim relief is necessary to prevent injustice and meet the ends of justice.
CS(COMM)-881/2024
Parties: KABUSHIKI KAISHA TOYOTA JIDOSHOKKI vs LMW LIMITED
Judge(s): JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE
Area of Law: Intellectual Property Law
The High Court held that since the plaintiff's patent IN759 had already expired on 24.05.2025, the court is precluded from passing any injunction order to restrain the defendant from infringing this patent, as the life and term of a patent are crucial factors in determining the fate of an interim injunction application. The court did not make any findings on the merits of the case, i.e., on the issues of infringement or validity of the patents, and instead directed the defendant to file an affidavit providing details of the Spinpact products manufactured during the subsistence of IN759, for final adjudication of the parties' rights and contentions.
MAT.APP.(F.C.)-160/2025
Parties: ANITA SHARMA vs NARESH KUMAR SHARMA
Judge(s): JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA, JUSTICE RENU BHATNAGAR
Area of Law: Family Law
The High Court upheld the order of the Family Court granting a decree of divorce to the respondent-husband on the ground of cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The court relied on the principle that cruelty is to be assessed based on the cumulative effect of the facts and circumstances, and not in isolation. The court found that the appellant-wife's repeated filing of complaints against the respondent with his employer, including unsubstantiated allegations of adultery, amounted to cruelty. The court also considered the fact that the parties had been living separately for around 15 years, and held that prolonging the bitter and acrimonious relationship would only result in further cruelty to both parties.
C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM)-279/2023
Parties: MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL PROPERTIES INC. vs MANISH VIJAY & ORS.
Judge(s): JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE
Area of Law: Intellectual Property Law
The High Court allowed the petition filed by Major League Baseball Properties Inc. and directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to cancel and remove the registration of the trademark 'BLUE-JAY' registered in favor of the respondents, M/s. PMS Creations. The court held that the petitioner was the prior adopter and user of the 'BLUE JAYS' mark, and the respondents' subsequent adoption of the deceptively similar 'BLUE-JAY' mark was tainted with dishonest intent, reflecting bad faith on the respondents' part in attempting to ride on the goodwill and reputation of the petitioner's mark.
C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM)-44/2024
Parties: AVIENT SWITZERLAND GMBH vs TREADFAST VENTURES & ANR.
Judge(s): JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE
Area of Law: Intellectual Property Law
The High Court held that the burden of proof in opposition proceedings lies on the opponent (respondent no. 1) to establish its claims of prior registration and use of the trademark. Mere presence of a trademark on the register is not sufficient, and the opponent must lead cogent evidence to substantiate its claims.
The court found that the respondent no. 2 (Registrar of Trade Marks) erred in allowing the opposition proceedings solely on the basis of the opponent's unsubstantiated claims, without considering the evidence filed by the appellant. The court has thus remanded the opposition proceedings back to the Registrar of Trade Marks for fresh adjudication in accordance with law.
The court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case, and has directed the Registrar to dispose of the matter within six months without being influenced by the observations made in the judgment.
W.P.(C)-4297/2025
Parties: STUMPP SCHUELE LEWIS MACHINE TOOLS PVT LTD vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Judge(s): JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, JUSTICE RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA
Area of Law: Administrative Law
The Court upheld the rejection of the Petitioner's technical bid by Respondent No. 2, the Directorate General of the Central Reserve Police Force, for the procurement of 200 Sniper Rifles and 20,000 ammunitions.
The court found that the Petitioner's Sniper rifle failed the 400m accuracy test during the field trials, and the Petitioner was given sufficient opportunities to test its rifle. The court rejected the Petitioner's contention that Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 gained an undue advantage by using Hollow Point Boat Tail (HPBT) ammunition instead of the specified Lapua Magnum Ball/Lock base ammunition, as the tender allowed the use of 'matching ammunition' during the trials. The court observed that the Petitioner did not object to the use of HPBT ammunition by the other bidders during the trials and issued fair trial certificates.
The court held that the technical evaluation by the expert Board of Officers, who permitted the use of 'matching ammunition', was a plausible interpretation of the tender conditions and should not be interfered with. Accordingly, the court dismissed the writ petition.
W.P.(C)-13654/2023
Parties: HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED & ORS. vs MR SIDDHARTHA MUKHERJEE
Judge(s): JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN
Area of Law: Administrative Law
The key points from the summary are:
1. The High Court held that the Central Information Commission (CIC) exceeded its jurisdiction under the Right to Information (RTI) Act by issuing show cause notices to the Public Information Officers (PIOs) of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (HPCL) for not furnishing a list of empaneled advocates.
2. The court found that HPCL had consistently maintained that it does not maintain a panel of advocates and engages them on a case-by-case basis. The CIC's observations on the desirability of HPCL maintaining a panel of advocates were held to be beyond the scope of the RTI Act.
3. The court relied on several Supreme Court judgments cautioning against the misuse of the RTI Act and held that the CIC's jurisdiction is limited to addressing the denial of information that is actually maintained by the public authority, not to dictate policy decisions.
4. Accordingly, the High Court set aside the CIC's impugned order and held that no further proceedings will be taken pursuant to the show cause notices issued by the CIC.
O.M.P. (COMM)-415/2024
Parties: RAHEJA DEVELOPERS LIMITED vs AHLUWALIA CONTRACTORS INDIA LTD
Judge(s): JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI
Area of Law: Arbitration Law
The High Court allowed the petitioner Raheja Developers Ltd. to amend its petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act to include an additional ground challenging the arbitral tribunal's jurisdiction to pass the impugned award.
The court held that the amendment is permissible as the ground is legal in nature and based on the foundational facts pleaded in the original petition, which was filed within the statutory limitation period. The court distinguished the Supreme Court's ruling in Hindustan Construction v. State of Maharashtra, finding that the present case falls within the exceptions carved out where amendments can be allowed even after the limitation period.
The court rejected the respondent's preliminary objections that the amendment application is time-barred and that it amounts to a new case beyond the scope of the original proceedings. The court clarified that the observations on the merits of the additional ground are without prejudice to the respondent's rights to argue on the same during the final hearing of the Section 34 petition.
O.M.P. (COMM)-278/2017
Parties: LARSEN & TOUBRO LIMITED vs RAIL VIKAS NIGAM LIMITED
Judge(s): JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI
Area of Law: Arbitration Law
The High Court upheld the decision of the Arbitral Tribunal (AT) in rejecting the Petitioner's (M/s Larsen & Toubro Limited) Claim No. 1 for idling of men, machinery and resources. The court found that the AT had rightly interpreted the relevant clauses of the General Conditions of Contract (GCC), which specifically barred the contractor from claiming monetary compensation for delays attributable to the employer.
The court noted that the Petitioner did not challenge the validity of these GCC clauses before the AT, and it would not be appropriate for the court to examine that issue for the first time in these Section 34 proceedings. Accordingly, the court dismissed the petition, holding that the AT's decision did not suffer from any infirmity under the Arbitration & Conciliation Act.
W.P.(C)-9491/2005
Parties: B.S.E.S.RAJDHANI POWER LTD. vs GOVT. OF N.C.T. OF DELHI & ANR
Judge(s): JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN
Area of Law: Administrative Law
The High Court held that the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD) did not have the power to unilaterally amend the allocation of a residential property from BSES Rajdhani Power Limited (the petitioner) to Delhi Transco Limited, after the assets of the erstwhile Delhi Vidyut Board had been transferred to the successor entities under the Delhi Electricity Reform (Transfer Scheme) Rules, 2001.
The court found that the transfer of assets, including the subject property, to the petitioner as the successful bidder for DISCOM-II was effected in accordance with the Delhi Electricity Reforms Act, 2000 and the Transfer Scheme Rules. GNCTD's power to modify the transfers was limited to a period of three months from the date of transfer under the rules, and twelve months under the parent statute. The impugned order, issued over two years after the transfer, was held to be beyond the scope of GNCTD's statutory powers and was accordingly set aside. The court directed GNCTD to hand over possession of the subject property to the petitioner.
W.P.(C)-3424/2019
Parties: AMAR SINGH vs COMMISSIONER OF POLICE & ORS
Judge(s): JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA, JUSTICE RENU BHATNAGAR
Area of Law: Service Law
The High Court held that the selection process for the post of Constable (Bugler) in the Delhi Police was flawed on two grounds:
1. The composition of the Board of Officers conducting the Trade Test was not in accordance with the Delhi Police (Appointment and Recruitment) Rules, 1980 and the Standing Order No. 258/2006, as it included a Head Constable (Band) instead of an Inspector or Sub-Inspector (Band) as required.
2. The selection process deviated from the established practice of evaluating candidates solely based on their performance in playing the bugle, and instead included assessment of their skills in playing other musical instruments like pipe band and singing.
The High Court found that the selection of respondent no. 12, Vikas Thapa, who was appointed against a UR vacancy for Constable (Bugler) post despite not being able to play the bugle, was improper.
However, the High Court recognized that quashing the entire selection process could cause injustice to the selected candidates who were not at fault. Hence, it directed that the petitioner, if next in rank, be accommodated in the post of Constable (Bugler) against an available vacancy or a supernumerary post, with only notional seniority and pay fixation.
The High Court did not find any mala fide on the part of the respondents and appreciated the diligence with which the petitioner had pursued his remedies.
LPA-1110/2024
Parties: ATLAS LOGISTIC PVT. LTD. vs MR. JITENDRA KUMAR
Judge(s): JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA, JUSTICE RENU BHATNAGAR
Area of Law: Labor Law
The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the employer, Atlas Logistics Pvt Ltd, against the award of the Labor Court, which had held the termination of the employee, Jitendra Kumar, to be illegal and unjustified. The court found that the employer had failed to conduct a departmental inquiry before terminating the employee on grounds of misconduct, and also failed to provide evidence to prove payment of the required retrenchment compensation. The court rejected the employer's plea that the employee had voluntarily resigned and the matter was settled, and held that the termination violated the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the principles of natural justice.
CS(OS)-3316/2015
Parties: KRISHAN KUMAR WADHWA & ORS vs ARJUN SOM DUTT & ORS
Judge(s): JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
Area of Law: Contract Law
The High Court held that the termination of the agreement to sell by one of the defendants was premature and illegal, as the plaintiffs' obligation to pay the balance consideration had not yet arisen. The court rejected the defendants' arguments and directed them to refund the earnest money and advance consideration to the plaintiffs, along with interest at 8% per annum from the date of payment, and awarded the plaintiffs the costs of the suit.
CRL.REV.P.(MAT.)-167/2024
Parties: MANOJ KUMAR vs SANGEETA
Judge(s): JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA
Area of Law: Family Law
The High Court held that the trial court had rightly granted ad-interim maintenance of ₹10,000 per month to the respondent, finding the quantum to be reasonable based on the respondent's admitted income as a soldier in the Indian Army.
The court clarified the distinction between interim maintenance and ad-interim maintenance, with the latter being a temporary relief granted at an early stage based on a prima facie assessment, without full adjudication of the interim maintenance application. The court ruled that ad-interim maintenance can be granted even in the absence of a specific application, if the record contains the respondent's admitted income details or there is unreasonable delay in filing the required affidavits.
However, the court modified the order to make the ad-interim maintenance payable from the date of the ad-interim order, and not retrospectively from the date of filing of the application, as the purpose of ad-interim relief is to provide immediate assistance and not retrospective compensation.
Bombay High Court
PIL/40/2019
Parties: PANKAJ RAJMACHIKAR Vs STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND 2 ORS.
Judge(s): THE CHIEF JUSTICE, JUSTICE SANDEEP V. MARNE
Area of Law: Administrative Law
The Court held that the decision of the state government to set up a memorial for late Balasaheb Thackeray at the site of the Mayor's Bungalow is a matter of policy within the discretion of the executive, which the court is hesitant to interfere with. The court rejected challenges to the amendment made to the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act to allow leasing the land at a nominal rent, as well as the procedure followed for modifying the development plan to change the reservation and zoning of the land. The composition of the trust set up to manage the memorial was also upheld, as the court did not find the inclusion of Shiv Sena party members and Thackeray family members to be arbitrary.
WP/428/2018
Parties: DIPAK KUMAR CHATTOPADHYAY Vs STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND 2 ORS
Judge(s): JUSTICE M.S. SONAK, JUSTICE JITENDRA SHANTILAL JAIN
Area of Law: Administrative Law
The High Court set aside the order removing the Petitioner from his position as a Member of the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB). The court found that while the removal was carried out under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, which empowered the State Government to remove members, the penalty of removal was disproportionate to the charges against the Petitioner, which primarily involved coordination issues with the Chairperson of the JJB and minor administrative lapses. The court held that a warning or counseling would have been a more appropriate measure, and ordered the removal order to be set aside, noting that the Petitioner, being a senior citizen and professional, had already borne the stigma of removal for several years and had no further interest in the position.
CARBAL/12585/2025
Parties: AMBIT URBANSPACE Vs PODDAR APARTMENT CO OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED
Judge(s): THE CHIEF JUSTICE, JUSTICE SANDEEP V. MARNE
Area of Law: Arbitration Law
The High Court held that the developer-Ambit Urbanspace is entitled to seek interim measures under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act against the garage occupiers (Respondent Nos. 5 to 8 and Respondent No. 9) to vacate the garages and hand over possession for the purpose of redevelopment of the building. The court found that the garage occupiers' alleged tenancy rights would be subservient to the contractual obligations of the co-operative housing society under the development agreement, and their occupation cannot obstruct the redevelopment process.
The court clarified that the findings on the tenancy rights of the garage occupiers are left open to be decided in separate proceedings, and will not influence any such future determination.
WP/7383/2025
Parties: USHA ARJUN PAWAR Vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
Judge(s): JUSTICE S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR
Area of Law: Election Law
The High Court upheld the orders of the Collector and the Additional Divisional Commissioner setting aside the petitioner's election as Sarpanch (village head) of Village Panchayat Shirsoli. The court found that the petitioner had submitted a fake caste validity certificate to get elected from the reserved OBC category seat, which vitiated her nomination and election. The court held that the Collector had the jurisdiction under Section 33(5) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act to deal with a "dispute arising as to the validity of the election" on such grounds.
Calcutta High Court
FAT/66/2017
Parties: CELICA DEVELOPERS (P) LIMITED vs M/S. WADHWANA
Judge(s): JUSTICE SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA, JUSTICE UDAY KUMAR
Area of Law: Tenancy Law
The High Court held that the tenancy relationship between the appellant (Celica Developers Pvt. Ltd.) and the respondent (M/s Wadhwana) is governed by the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and not the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997.
The court reasoned that the "rent" for the premises, which included the basic rent of Rs. 2,000 per month and the air-conditioning (AC) charges of Rs. 11,000 per month, exceeded the ceiling limit of Rs. 10,000 per month under the 1997 Act. The court concluded that the AC charges were an integral part of the "rent" as the AC was an essential amenity for the enjoyment of the tenancy.
The court also rejected the respondent's cross-objections regarding the maintainability of the suit, holding that the later suit was not barred under Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and that the suit was maintainable under Order XXIX Rule 1 as the director who signed the plaint was able to depose to the facts.
Accordingly, the court allowed the appellant's appeals, set aside the trial court's judgment, and granted a decree of eviction in favor of the appellant.
WPA/5182/2025
Parties: M/S. JINDAL (INDIA) LTD. vs THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.
Judge(s): JUSTICE SHAMPA DUTT PAUL
Area of Law: Labor Law
The High Court held that the Industrial Tribunal's decision to discard the cross-examination evidence of the petitioner on the ground of it being beyond or deficient in pleadings was not in accordance with law. The High Court relied on Supreme Court precedents that emphasized the importance of considering the entire evidence, including cross-examination, for proper adjudication. The High Court set aside the Tribunal's award and directed the Tribunal to rehear the case, considering the cross-examination evidence as well.
CRR/656/2023
Parties: HASIN JAHAN vs THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANR.
Judge(s): JUSTICE AJOY KUMAR MUKHERJEE
Area of Law: Criminal Law
The High Court held that the interim monetary relief granted by the lower appellate court to Hasin Jahan (the wife) and her minor daughter was inadequate. Considering the financial capacity of the husband/opposite party, the standard of living of the parties, and the object of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 to prevent destitution, the High Court revised the interim relief to Rs. 1,50,000 per month for Hasin Jahan and Rs. 2,50,000 per month for the daughter, to be paid from the date of filing the application. The High Court directed the trial court to dispose of the main application under Section 12 of the Act as early as possible, while clarifying that the observations made in the present judgment shall not influence the final decision.
CRR/1382/2018
Parties: VARGAB MALLIK & ORS. vs THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANR.
Judge(s): JUSTICE AJOY KUMAR MUKHERJEE
Area of Law: Criminal Law
The High Court held that no prima facie case is made out against the petitioners under Sections 498A (cruelty) or 323 (voluntarily causing hurt) of the Indian Penal Code. The court found that the allegations in the FIR and the materials collected during investigation do not disclose any specific conduct by the petitioners that would amount to cruelty likely to drive the victim to suicide or cause grave injury, or any physical assault. The court placed reliance on the victim's own testimony in a related matrimonial proceeding, where she had admitted that her husband (the petitioner) never tortured her and their union used to take place at an interval of around three months. Accordingly, the High Court quashed the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioners.
APOT/106/2025
Parties: EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED AND ORS vs MANGALI @ MANGALA BOURI
Judge(s): JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM, JUSTICE CHAITALI CHATTERJEE DAS
Area of Law: Labor Law
The High Court held that the appellant authority (Eastern Coalfields Limited) failed to provide the claimant, Mangala Bouri, with either employment or monthly monetary cash compensation (MMCC) as per the provisions of the National Coal Wage Agreement (NCWA), despite her repeated applications and appearances before the screening committee.
The court found the authority's conduct in repeatedly asking the claimant to provide documents and then not reaching a final decision for over 10 years to be unreasonable and in violation of the claimant's rights under the NCWA settlement. The court rejected the authority's argument that the delay was due to the claimant's negligence, and held that the authority, being a public sector undertaking and a "State" under Article 12 of the Constitution, had an obligation to ensure that the family of the deceased employee does not face financial distress.
The court modified the single judge's order to direct the authority to pay the MMCC to the claimant from September 2001, when the screening committee found her claim to be authentic, along with 7.5% simple interest, to be paid by July 15, 2025.