The Yearly Reports: Top twelve judgments of the Delhi High Court

With the Bar Association elections, the golden jubilee celebrations and a significant amount of jurisprudence on intellectual property rights, the past year has been extremely eventful one for the Delhi High Court..As the year draws to a close, we look back at twelve landmark judgments pronounced by the capital’s high court..1. International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) v. Madhu Bala Nath (January 2016).Justices Badar Durrez Ahmed and Sanjeev Sachdeva observed that courts must be liberal and pragmatic in allowing the witnesses to depose through video conferencing..The single judge had rejected the petitioner’s application seeking permission to record through audio and video link, the testimony of one sole witness, Ms. Rosalind Miller who was based in London. This order by the Single judge was assailed before the Division Bench of the High Court..Justice Badar Durrez Ahmed had spoken extensively about the technological advancements made by the Delhi High Court in the recent past which made it one of the leading high courts in the country in keeping up with the digital age..In the matter, the bench held that the single judge had erred in not noticing the development of law and technology that has taken place over the years. According to the judges, the Civil Procedure Code is subservient to justice and with the development of law and technology; the Courts have to use procedures which facilitate in dispensing speedy justice..Counsels who appeared: Mudit Sharma and Tanmaya Nirmal for the appellants, and Sanjiv Bahl and Eklavya Bahl for the respondents..Read the full judgment here..2. Cellular Operators Association of India and Ors. v. Telecom Regulatory Authority of India and Ors. (February 2016).Chief Justice G. Rohini and Justice Jayant Nath upheld the order of TRAI mandating cellular operators to compensate subscribers for call drops..The Cellular Operators Association of India and 21 telecom operators had filed a batch of petitions which were clubbed and heard together by the bench headed by the Chief Justice which held,.“There is no dispute about the power of TRAI to make regulations under S. 36 of the Act. The impugned regulation has been made in exercise of the power conferred under the Act, keeping in mind the paramount interest of the consumer. It is also relevant to note that the regulations do not penalize every call drop but is limited only to three call drops a day per consumer.”.The Telecom Consumer Protection (Ninth Amendment) Regulations of 2015 states that every cellular service provider is liable to credit every consumer who initiates a voice call, by one rupee for a call drop within its network for a maximum of three call drops per day. In case of postpaid customers, the amount should be credited to the account of the customer in the next bill..It was contended by the telecom operators that the impugned regulations penalized them without proving any wrongdoing. They had termed the regulation as “arbitrary and whimsical”, claiming that such a restriction on the companies’ tariff structure could only be interfered with by an order, and not a regulation..Counsels who appeared: Senior Advocates Harish Salve, Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Gopal Jain for the petitioners. ASG P.S. Narasimha for the respondents..Read the full judgment here..Note: This judgment was set aside by the Supreme Court..3. P.K. Dash, Advocate and Ors. v. Bar Council of Delhi and Ors. (May 2016).Justices S. Ravindra Bhat and Siddharth Mridul pronounced the judgment directing the implementation of the one-bar-one-vote principle for Delhi’s bar association elections..A case that came up before the bench time and again with clarificatory applications, the P.K. Dash judgment was in the limelight for several months due to the DHCBA elections that were scheduled for November this year..According to the judgment, any member who has cast a vote in any bar association election in Delhi cannot cast a vote for a different bar association election until the next cycle of elections..The case also dealt with the issue of chamber allotment with the petition claiming that the rules governing allotment of chambers in various court complexes..The case was constantly surrounded by the bar politics with the bench witnessing disputes between the then President of the DHCBA Rajiv Khosla and the association members..Counsels who appeared: Sachin Puri and Apoorv Tripathi for DHCBA and Rajiv Khosla..Read the full judgment here..4. Department of Electronics and Information Technology v. Star India Private Ltd. (July 2016).Justices Pradeep Nandrajog and A.K. Pathak ordered the blocking of 73 websites and directed the Department of Electronics and Information Technology to assist in the enforcement of the orders passed on online piracy issues..The order arose out of a review petition filed by the Department contending that they cannot be made parties in a private dispute between copyright owners and alleged infringers..The division bench stated,.“The respondent has placed enough material in the suit to show that the rogue websites are indulging in rank piracy and thus prima-facie the stringent measure to block the website as a whole is justified because blocking a URL may not suffice due to the ease with which a URL can be changed, and as noted above, the number of URLs of the rogue websites range between 2 to 2026 and cumulatively would be approximately 20,000. It would be a gargantuan task for the respondent to keep on identifying each offending URL and especially keeping in view that as and when the respondent identifies the URL and it is blocked by the ISP, the rogue website, within seconds can change the URL thereby frustrating the very act of blocking the URL.”.The High Court also observed that if any of the above websites could show that its dominant activity is lawful and makes out a case for vacating the ex-parte ad-interim injunction, they could approach the Trial Judge who would consider modification thereof to block a URL..Counsels who appeared: The Department of Electronics and Information Technology was represented by ASG Sanjay Jain instructed by Sanjeev Narula, and Star India was represented by Senior Advocate Prathiba M. Singh instructed by Saikrishna Rajagopal..Read the full judgment here..5. Kritika Padode and Anr. v. Union of India and Anr. (August 2016).The Chief Justice’s bench of the Delhi High Court upheld the ban imposed on the BBC documentary India’s Daughter based on the December 16 gang rape incident popularly known as the Nirbhaya case..The decision arose out of three PIL’s that questioned the ban on the documentary and sought its revocation. Additionally, the Information and Broadcasting Ministry’s advisory issued on March 3, 2015 that restrained private TV channels from airing the documentary also came under the scanner..The High Court held that,.“It is apparent from the facts borne out of the record that the “advisory” dated 03.03.2015 was a mere advice to the private satellite TV channels. However, there is a judicial order prohibiting telecasting and the matter is still pending before the competent court of law. Therefore, the contentions advanced by the petitioners regarding the validity of the “advisory” issued by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting deserve no consideration at this stage.”.The documentary made by a British filmmaker Leslee Udwin, was banned right before its scheduled release on the basis that the contents of the documentary were “malicious and derogatory to women”..Counsels who appeared: Advocate Naman Joshi and Siddharth Aggrawal for the petitioners and Monika Arora and Kushal Kumar for the Union of India..Read the full judgment here..6. Cub Pty Limited (Formerly Known as Foster’s Australia Ltd.) v. Union of India and Ors. (July 2016).The Delhi High Court ruled on the scope of the Income Tax Act, 1961 with respect to cross-border transfers of intangible capital assets such as logos and trademarks in a landmark judgment of the division bench of Justices Badar Durrez Ahmed and Sanjeev Sachdeva..The case dealt with the transfer of intellectual property from Foster’s Australia to SABMiller following SABMiller’s acquisition of Foster’s Indian assets. These assets included 16 trademarks, and “Foster’s Brand Intellectual Property”. In May of 2008, the Authority for Advance Ruling (Income Tax), ruled that the transfer would be taxable in India because of the intellectual property in question pertained to India and in some cases, was also registered in India..Overruling the decision of the AAR, the High Court held that intellectual property in the form of logos, brands and trademarks whose owners were based out of India could not be taxed in India by virtue of the provisions of the Income Tax Act and the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Australia..Counsels who appeared: Senior Advocate S. Ganesh with Atul Dua for the petitioners and N.P. Sahni for the respondents..Read the full judgment here..7. Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi v. Union of India (August 2016).In a 194-page judgment, Chief Justice G Rohini and Justice Jayant Nath of the Delhi High Court rejected the claims of the AAP party against the Union of India, and more specifically the Lt. Governor of Delhi to hold that Delhi continues to be a Union Territory, and that the Lt. Governor of Delhi is not bound to act only on the “aid and advice” of the Delhi Legislative Assembly..The bench also held that,.“It is mandatory under the constitutional scheme to communicate the decision of the Council of Ministers to the Lt. Governor even in relation to the matters in respect of which power to make laws has been conferred on the Legislative Assembly of NCT of Delhi under clause (3)(a) of Article 239AA of the Constitution and an order thereon can be issued only where the Lt. Governor does not take a different view and no reference to the Central Government is required in terms of the proviso to clause (4) of Article 239AA of the Constitution read with Chapter V of the Transaction of Business of the Government of NCT of Delhi Rules, 1993.”.A case that attracted all the big names in the legal field in the capital, the Delhi High Court had seen a flurry of petitions relating to the simmering battle since May last year..Counsels who appeared: Senior advocates Rajeev Dhawan, Dayan Krishnan, Indira Jaising, H.S. Phoolka, Siddharth Luthra, Sudhir Nandrajog and P.P. Rao and ASG Sanjay Jain..Read the full judgment here..8. Karmanya Singh Sareen and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. (September 2016).Chief Justice G. Rohini and Sangita Dhingra Sehgal, J. directed Whatsapp Inc. to delete any user data collected by the messaging company prior to September 25 this year..Students Karmanya Singh Sareen and Shreya Sethi had filed a PIL challenging the recent change in Whatsapp’s user policies. This new policy allows social media giant, and Whatsapp’s parent company, Facebook, access to Whatsapp user’s data..The High Court settled the matter by directing Whatsapp to delete all the information stored on their servers till September 25, and restraining them from sharing this information with Facebook. The bench made this order applicable on all the users’ information irrespective of whether or not the users had accepted the new privacy policy..Counsels who appeared: Senior advocates Prathiba Singh and Sandeep Sethi argued for the petitioners with Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra representing Whatsapp Inc..Read the full judgment here..9. The Indian Hotels Company Ltd. v. New Delhi Municipal Council (October 2016).Justices Pradeep Nandrajog and Pratibha Rani gave the nod off to the auction of the Taj Mansingh Hotel. The bench dismissed the appeal by Indian Hotels Company Ltd. challenging the single judge order that dismissed their suit seeking to restrain NDMC from auctioning the five-star hotel..IHCL was awarded a 33-year old lease which expired in 2011, after which several rounds of litigation took place. IHCL had argued that not only had they obtained the lease from NDMC, but they had also actively participated, partnered and invested along with the NDMC in the hotel..Counsels who appeared: Senior advocates Harish Salve, Rajiv Nayar and ASG Sanjay Jain..Read the full judgment here..Note: In an appeal filed against this judgment, the Supreme Court has ordered maintenance of status quo..10. Pfizer Limited and Anr. v. Union of India and Anr. (December 2016).Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw quashed 344 notifications issued in March 2016 by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare banning Fixed Dose Combination (FDC) drugs..Top pharma players like Pfizer, Glenmark, Procter & Gamble, Sun Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi, Cipla and Dr. Reddy’s had approached the Court, with their lawyers arguing that the government had not properly implemented their powers to prohibit the manufacture of drugs and cosmetics in public interest under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act..In this regard, Justice Endlaw held in his 82-page judgment,.“Section 26A does not vest the Central Government with a carte blanche to regulate, restrict or prohibit the manufacture, sale or distribution of a drug. The Central Government can exercise power thereunder only when satisfied that the drug involves risk to the consumers thereof or does not have any therapeutic value or contains ingredients of which there is no therapeutic justification ‘and’ that in public interest it is necessary or expedient to regulate, restrict or prohibit that drug..Thus, the power of regulation, restriction or prohibition under Section 26A cannot be exercised in public interest, for any reason other than the drug posing a risk to consumers thereof or having no therapeutic value or no therapeutic justification.”.ASG Sanjay Jain had appeared for the government and submitted that most licenses given to the pharma companies for manufacturing the drugs were given by State Governments and when these Governments did not take any action against the said ‘harmful’ drugs, the Parliamentary Committee had to intervene and conduct a proper drug trial..Counsels who appeared: More than twenty senior counsels appeared for the petitioners including Kapil Sibal, P Chidambaram, Ashok Desai, Parag P. Tripathi, A.S. Chandiok, Arvind Nigam and Rajiv Nayar. ASG Sanjay Jain assisted by Amit Mahajan, Kirtiman Singh and Sanjeev Narula appeared for the Union of India..Read the full judgment here..11. The Chancellor, Masters & Scholars of University of Oxford and Ors. v. Rameshwari Photocopy Services and Ors. (December 2016).Justices Pradeep Nandrajog and Yogesh Khanna refused to grant an injunction to the international publishers in the Delhi University photocopiers case. However, the court also set aside the finding of the single bench that “no triable issue on fact” arose, and has restored the suit initiated by the book publishers..The appeal arose out of the single judge order of Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J. who had earlier this year pronounced a groundbreaking judgment that hinged on the exceptions to copyright infringement mentioned in Section 52 of the Copyright Act of 1957..Stating that copyright was “not a divine right”, Justice Endlaw had dismissed the infringement suit filed by a consortium of international publishers including Oxford University Press, Cambridge University Press and Taylor and Francis Group against a photocopy shop located in Delhi University, accusing them of selling “course-packs” that are compilations of text-books and other course materials for “commercial gain”..Counsels who appeared: Senior advocates Sudhir Chandra and Prathiba M. Singh, Anup Bhambhani and Neeraj Kishan Kaul..Read the full judgment here..12. Prius Auto Industries Limited and Ors. v. Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha (December 2016).Justices Pradeep Nandrajog and Yogesh Khanna held that use of the trademark “Prius” by a Delhi based automobile accessories company, Prius Auto Industries, does not violate the trademark owned by Toyota Motors in the same..The Court ruled in favour of Prius Auto holding that,.“Toyota is a big company. It has had a presence in India for over two decades when the suit was filed. It was well entrenched in the Indian market in the year 2001. Obviously no consumer of Toyota car or buyer of an auto part sold by Toyota was ever confused by the appellants selling their products under the trade mark Prius, for if this was so, in ten years somebody would have complained to Toyota or at least would have made known said fact to Toyota.”.Counsels who appeared: Senior advocates Sandeep Sethi and Prathiba Singh argued for the appellant Prius Auto Industries with Pravin Anand arguing for the automobile giant Toyota..Read the full judgment here.