It was another action-packed week at the capital’s High Court, with some of the country’s biggest corporate entities battling it out. Here is a look at some of the significant developments from the Delhi High Court this week..Monday (March 14).The SpiceJet-Maran saga.In the previous week, erstwhile founder Kalanithi Maran had reached the High Court with an allegation that SpiceJet Airways had defaulted in its obligation to transfer shares that were due to be transferred to him. The draft resolution for the purpose of transferring shares was submitted to the Bench by SpiceJet and the Court proceeded to pass an order that provided some relief to Maran..Justice Manmohan Singh directed the resolution to be passed within a period of three days and further held that that Maran’s application made to BSE, for issuance of redeemable warrants worth 18 crore rupees, shall be considered by the body after the resolution is passed..FDC Ban: Relief to Pfizer & Ors..The Health Ministry came up with a blanket ban on 344 Fixed Drug Combination drugs on March 13 and mayhem ensued among pharmaceutical companies. With common prescription drugs affected by the ban, last week was all about a slew of companies challenging the notification..Pfizer Ltd was the first company to get an interim order in its favor. .Abbott Healthcare followed and so did Glenmark, Macleods Pharma, P&G, Piramal, Alembic Pharma, Reckitt Benckiser, Cipla, Wockhardt Ltd, Dr. Reddy’s et.al; all of whom were granted stay on the ban imposed against their drugs. All these cases are slated to come up for hearing on March 21 i.e. Monday by which time the Ministry has also been directed to file its reply in the case..Social media & minors: The debate continues.Former BJP Leader KN Govindacharya had filed a petition contending that minors opening accounts with social networking sites violated the Indian Contract Act of 1872, the Indian Majority Act of 1875 and the Information Technology Act of 2000..On previous hearings, the Bench had directed Google Inc. and Google India to file affidavits on whether they were making money by hosting I&B content on YouTube. The Court had also directed ASG Sanjay Jain to file an affidavit on agreements that the government has with social networking sites like Facebook, Whatsapp etc...This week, with both Google Inc. and Google India having filed their replies in the case, the Bench said that it found the reply-affidavit of Google Inc. to be vague over some issues. It has now directed Google Inc. to file another detailed affidavit in this regard..Tuesday (March 15).Radio taxis battle it out.The app-based cab operators Ola Cabs, and Uber have been waging a year-long battle at the High Court against the Delhi government’s ban on diesel cabs..This time, the Bench directed Ola, Uber and the Association of Radio Taxis to file a list of cabs including their registration numbers, which they intend to phase out by March 31 as per the Supreme Court’s order. These details are to be submitted in a detailed cover by April 10, after which all the cases will be heard on April 18. Senior Advocates Rajiv Nayar and Dayan Krishnan appeared for Uber..Micromax and the claims of false statements.Smartphone manufacturer Micromax has been waging allegations of false claims in the patent infringement dispute that it has been fighting against Ericsson. Senior Advocates Neeraj Kishan Kaul and Pratibha Singh have been appearing for Ericsson while a battery of seniors including PV Kapur, and Sandeep Sethi have represented Micromax. The Bench has reserved its orders..Wednesday (March 16).Special status to Jammu & Kashmir- what will the High Court decide?.A petition that had challenged the special status accorded to the state of Jammu & Kashmir, saw the Bench of Chief Justice G Rohini and Justice Jayant Nath reserve its orders in the case. The plea posed a substantial question as to whether Article 370 of the Constitution was a ‘temporary provision’ that had lapsed with the dissolution of the state’s Constituent Assembly in 1957..During previous hearings, the petitioner had repeatedly argued that the plea was different from those that were earlier considered and subsequently dismissed by the apex court. .Thursday (March 17).Kanhaiya in Court .Controversial JNUSU President Kanhaiya Kumar made an appearance at the High Court again when three petitions seeking cancellation of his interim bail were filed last week. The pleas had stated that Kumar’s speech subsequent to his release was anti-national and thus, violative of the bail conditions. The Bench will hear these matters in the upcoming week..Friday (March 18).Vodafone’s challenge to a Govt’s special audit.Telecom major Vodafone moved the Court against an Income Tax Department notice that had asked the company about its financial records for financial year 2011-12 as it ought not to be subjected in a special audit..After the CAG had imputed major losses to the exchequer due to under-reporting received from telecom companies, a special audit had been put to practice by the I-T Dept..The Division Bench of Justices Dr. S Murlidhar and Vibhu Bakhru issued noticed to the Department and sought its response over the issue. Senior Advocate P Chidambaram appeared for the company..Acid victims – Court imports duty of compensation on state government.In a progressive move, the High Court stepped into the realm of payment of compensation to acid victims. A plea was moved by Renu Sharma, an acid attack victim who was attacked by the tenant in her family when his tenancy was cancelled in 2006. Her petition had sought compensation of at least Rs 50 lakh as well as directions to the authorities concerned to reimburse the medical expenses incurred by her till now..She had also urged the court to provide a government job of not less than a Grade II officer to her or a family member..Justice Manmohan directed the Delhi Government to pay for the woman’s treatment expenses, before stating that any medical bills incurred by the woman till date, will be scrutinized by an officer appointed by the Finance Secretary of Delhi government and appropriately reimbursed. The Court also directed the Government to grant employment to Sharma on ‘compassionate grounds’ suited to her educational qualification as well as medical status..IPR Roundup.1. Anchor Health & Beauty Care Pvt Ltd Vs V Kaushik & Ors..Trademark infringement dispute. Both parties agreed upon the framing of issues which are:-.a) Whether the plaintiff is the owner of expression “all round protection” and “tooth device” used for toothpaste under the trademark of Anchor?.b) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to damages and if yes, then what amount?.The Bench directed the parties to file a list of witnesses and listed the case for further proceedings before the Joint Registrar on May 24..2. M/S Allied Blenders and Distillers Pvt Ltd Vs. Leo Foods & Beverages.The plaintiff sought time to file additional documents which was granted by the Bench. The case was adjourned to be heard on July 25 for ex-parte final arguments..3. Anandji Virji Shah & Ors Vs. M/S UTV Motion Pictures & Ors.The counsel submitted that since they received the file only yesterday, they needed time to file their vakalat in the matter. Accordingly, a short adjournment was granted by the Bench..4. Mekong Marine Corporation & Ors Vs Heritage River Cruises Pvt Ltd & Ors..The counter-claimant’s counsel was not present in Court for which an adjournment was sought. The Bench adjourned the matter to July 29..5. TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON(PUB) Vs. Mercury Electronics & Anr..The Micromax-Ericcson dispute has been adjourned to July 25..6. Novartis AG & Ors Vs Cadila Healthcare Ltd .The defendants sought for an expeditious hearing of the patent infringment case, in which the arguments had been going on for quite some time now. The defendant counsel also submitted that the case had been listed for a total of 26 times now and since the patent was expiring in 2019, the suit would be rendered infructuous if there were to be no speedy resolution of the dispute..The Bench, accordingly posted the case for hearing on consecutive dates of July 18 & 19.
It was another action-packed week at the capital’s High Court, with some of the country’s biggest corporate entities battling it out. Here is a look at some of the significant developments from the Delhi High Court this week..Monday (March 14).The SpiceJet-Maran saga.In the previous week, erstwhile founder Kalanithi Maran had reached the High Court with an allegation that SpiceJet Airways had defaulted in its obligation to transfer shares that were due to be transferred to him. The draft resolution for the purpose of transferring shares was submitted to the Bench by SpiceJet and the Court proceeded to pass an order that provided some relief to Maran..Justice Manmohan Singh directed the resolution to be passed within a period of three days and further held that that Maran’s application made to BSE, for issuance of redeemable warrants worth 18 crore rupees, shall be considered by the body after the resolution is passed..FDC Ban: Relief to Pfizer & Ors..The Health Ministry came up with a blanket ban on 344 Fixed Drug Combination drugs on March 13 and mayhem ensued among pharmaceutical companies. With common prescription drugs affected by the ban, last week was all about a slew of companies challenging the notification..Pfizer Ltd was the first company to get an interim order in its favor. .Abbott Healthcare followed and so did Glenmark, Macleods Pharma, P&G, Piramal, Alembic Pharma, Reckitt Benckiser, Cipla, Wockhardt Ltd, Dr. Reddy’s et.al; all of whom were granted stay on the ban imposed against their drugs. All these cases are slated to come up for hearing on March 21 i.e. Monday by which time the Ministry has also been directed to file its reply in the case..Social media & minors: The debate continues.Former BJP Leader KN Govindacharya had filed a petition contending that minors opening accounts with social networking sites violated the Indian Contract Act of 1872, the Indian Majority Act of 1875 and the Information Technology Act of 2000..On previous hearings, the Bench had directed Google Inc. and Google India to file affidavits on whether they were making money by hosting I&B content on YouTube. The Court had also directed ASG Sanjay Jain to file an affidavit on agreements that the government has with social networking sites like Facebook, Whatsapp etc...This week, with both Google Inc. and Google India having filed their replies in the case, the Bench said that it found the reply-affidavit of Google Inc. to be vague over some issues. It has now directed Google Inc. to file another detailed affidavit in this regard..Tuesday (March 15).Radio taxis battle it out.The app-based cab operators Ola Cabs, and Uber have been waging a year-long battle at the High Court against the Delhi government’s ban on diesel cabs..This time, the Bench directed Ola, Uber and the Association of Radio Taxis to file a list of cabs including their registration numbers, which they intend to phase out by March 31 as per the Supreme Court’s order. These details are to be submitted in a detailed cover by April 10, after which all the cases will be heard on April 18. Senior Advocates Rajiv Nayar and Dayan Krishnan appeared for Uber..Micromax and the claims of false statements.Smartphone manufacturer Micromax has been waging allegations of false claims in the patent infringement dispute that it has been fighting against Ericsson. Senior Advocates Neeraj Kishan Kaul and Pratibha Singh have been appearing for Ericsson while a battery of seniors including PV Kapur, and Sandeep Sethi have represented Micromax. The Bench has reserved its orders..Wednesday (March 16).Special status to Jammu & Kashmir- what will the High Court decide?.A petition that had challenged the special status accorded to the state of Jammu & Kashmir, saw the Bench of Chief Justice G Rohini and Justice Jayant Nath reserve its orders in the case. The plea posed a substantial question as to whether Article 370 of the Constitution was a ‘temporary provision’ that had lapsed with the dissolution of the state’s Constituent Assembly in 1957..During previous hearings, the petitioner had repeatedly argued that the plea was different from those that were earlier considered and subsequently dismissed by the apex court. .Thursday (March 17).Kanhaiya in Court .Controversial JNUSU President Kanhaiya Kumar made an appearance at the High Court again when three petitions seeking cancellation of his interim bail were filed last week. The pleas had stated that Kumar’s speech subsequent to his release was anti-national and thus, violative of the bail conditions. The Bench will hear these matters in the upcoming week..Friday (March 18).Vodafone’s challenge to a Govt’s special audit.Telecom major Vodafone moved the Court against an Income Tax Department notice that had asked the company about its financial records for financial year 2011-12 as it ought not to be subjected in a special audit..After the CAG had imputed major losses to the exchequer due to under-reporting received from telecom companies, a special audit had been put to practice by the I-T Dept..The Division Bench of Justices Dr. S Murlidhar and Vibhu Bakhru issued noticed to the Department and sought its response over the issue. Senior Advocate P Chidambaram appeared for the company..Acid victims – Court imports duty of compensation on state government.In a progressive move, the High Court stepped into the realm of payment of compensation to acid victims. A plea was moved by Renu Sharma, an acid attack victim who was attacked by the tenant in her family when his tenancy was cancelled in 2006. Her petition had sought compensation of at least Rs 50 lakh as well as directions to the authorities concerned to reimburse the medical expenses incurred by her till now..She had also urged the court to provide a government job of not less than a Grade II officer to her or a family member..Justice Manmohan directed the Delhi Government to pay for the woman’s treatment expenses, before stating that any medical bills incurred by the woman till date, will be scrutinized by an officer appointed by the Finance Secretary of Delhi government and appropriately reimbursed. The Court also directed the Government to grant employment to Sharma on ‘compassionate grounds’ suited to her educational qualification as well as medical status..IPR Roundup.1. Anchor Health & Beauty Care Pvt Ltd Vs V Kaushik & Ors..Trademark infringement dispute. Both parties agreed upon the framing of issues which are:-.a) Whether the plaintiff is the owner of expression “all round protection” and “tooth device” used for toothpaste under the trademark of Anchor?.b) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to damages and if yes, then what amount?.The Bench directed the parties to file a list of witnesses and listed the case for further proceedings before the Joint Registrar on May 24..2. M/S Allied Blenders and Distillers Pvt Ltd Vs. Leo Foods & Beverages.The plaintiff sought time to file additional documents which was granted by the Bench. The case was adjourned to be heard on July 25 for ex-parte final arguments..3. Anandji Virji Shah & Ors Vs. M/S UTV Motion Pictures & Ors.The counsel submitted that since they received the file only yesterday, they needed time to file their vakalat in the matter. Accordingly, a short adjournment was granted by the Bench..4. Mekong Marine Corporation & Ors Vs Heritage River Cruises Pvt Ltd & Ors..The counter-claimant’s counsel was not present in Court for which an adjournment was sought. The Bench adjourned the matter to July 29..5. TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON(PUB) Vs. Mercury Electronics & Anr..The Micromax-Ericcson dispute has been adjourned to July 25..6. Novartis AG & Ors Vs Cadila Healthcare Ltd .The defendants sought for an expeditious hearing of the patent infringment case, in which the arguments had been going on for quite some time now. The defendant counsel also submitted that the case had been listed for a total of 26 times now and since the patent was expiring in 2019, the suit would be rendered infructuous if there were to be no speedy resolution of the dispute..The Bench, accordingly posted the case for hearing on consecutive dates of July 18 & 19.