Justice Rajiv Shakdher takes oath as 29th Chief Justice of Himachal Pradesh High Court
Justice Rajiv Shakdher’s elevation was recommended by the Collegium on 11-7-2024 and his appointment was finally confirmed by the Law Ministry on 21-9-2024.
Delhi High Court
‘Did not challenge selection criteria prior to entering the selection process’: Delhi HC upholds CAT order dismissing petition to set aside appointment order
In nutshell, when the petitioner could not find his place in selection list, he knocked the doors of the Court alleging mala fide at the hands of respondents, which cannot be permitted.
‘Policy based response from municipalities required, not judicial intervention’; Delhi HC denies to interfere in issue of lack of parking spaces in residential colonies
‘This issue is symptomatic of a larger urban planning failure, where colonies were developed without foresight for parking facilities, causing residents to park in the streets.’
Writ Jurisdiction and Arbitral Autonomy: Striking the Right Balance in India’s Arbitration Landscape
by Vasanth Rajasekaran* and Harshvardhan Korada**
Delhi HC upholds order by CAT allowing appointment of Scheduled Caste candidate holding Caste Certificate not issued by State of Delhi
‘NCT of Delhi is giving reservation to one category and denying the same to another, which is sheer discrimination and cannot be permitted.’
HIGH COURT SEPTEMBER 2024 WEEKLY ROUNDUP| Stories on Lawyer’s Custodial Assault; Medical Certificates for Parole; Compassionate Appointment; SSB Medical Exam; and more
A quick legal roundup to cover important stories from all High Courts this week.
‘Amul is a well-known mark’; Delhi High Court restrains Bio Logic and Psychotropics India Pvt Ltd from using mark similar to ‘AMUL’
No plausible explanation was provided by the defendants as to why the trade mark ‘AMUL’ was adopted. No written statement was filed on behalf of the defendants. The conduct of the defendants highlighted their mala fide and dishonesty in adopting the same mark, as that of the plaintiffs’.
Delhi High Court cancels trade mark ‘LI’L MONSTER’ to protect the Intellectual Property Rights of Monster Energy Co.
The trade mark ‘MONSTER’ had been adopted by Monster Energy Co. in 2002 in the United States of America.
‘Compensation is essential part of curing justice’; Delhi HC enhances compensation to Rs. 10.5 lakh for minor victim of sexual assault by father
Although the offence of ‘aggravated sexual assault’ was not mentioned in the compensation scheme, the Court referred to the offence of ‘unnatural sexual assault’ to determine the quantum of compensation.
[POCSO] Delhi High Court quashes charges against mother accused of failing to report daughter’s sexual assault by father
A mother is sought to be prosecuted for delay in reporting of sexual offences on a child by her own husband, despite the fact that the mother herself was allegedly subject to severe abuse, sexual and otherwise, in her matrimonial home.
Delhi High Court restrains use of ‘AMMAJI’ trademark due to confusion with established ‘AMBA’ brand in TMT Bar Market
It is not necessary for a registered owner of a trademark to proceed against all entities using similar marks in order to proceed against any one of them. There may be a myriad reasons why a proprietor of a registered trademark may refrain from proceeding against entities that it considers are using infringing marks.
Delhi HC declares order by Players’ Status Committee of AIFF directing Anwar Ali, Delhi FC, and Emami EBFC to pay Rs. 12.9 crores, unenforceable
‘The right to a fair hearing encompasses not only the opportunity to be heard but also the right to know the reasons for any adverse decision.’
‘Six weeks to regain medical fitness after pregnancy is extremely short’; Delhi HC directs re-examination of woman rejected for being overweight in SSB medical exam
The Court hoped that the Union would look into suitably amending the nomenclature of posts that are open to both males and females to make them gender-neutral.
[Amul v. Amuleti] Delhi HC grants interim relief to Gujarat Co-operative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd; restrains Terre Primitive from using marks/logos similar to ‘AMUL’
The plaintiffs submitted that Defendant 1 is dishonestly using an identical and deceptively similar trade mark as that of the plaintiffs’, so that any ordinary consumer would be misled to believe that Defendant 1’s products are that of the plaintiffs or associated with or emanating from the plaintiffs.
‘Role of Md. Haneef was to help in publication of ‘Islamic Movement’ magazine as a proofreader, not author’; Delhi HC grants bail to alleged member of SIMI
‘As per initial statements of police witnesses, no specific act of incitement had been pointed out regarding Md. Haneef, which led to the registration of the original FIR.’
HIGH COURTS SEPTEMBER 2024 WEEKLY ROUNDUP| Read latest updates on Arvind Kejriwal; Manu Bhaker Interview row; DHFL Bank Fraud case; and more
Take a quick glance at what the High Courts were discussing in this late Monsoon season
Delhi High Court grants interim bail to four co-owners of coaching centre basement where three civil services aspirants drowned to death
Allegedly, the coaching-institute was illegally running a library in the basement where the three students got stuck in a flood and died.
‘Powers under Art. 226 are not expansive enough to allow creation or modification of eligibility criteria for pursuing medicine’; Delhi HC refuses relief to a disabled person
‘As much as the Court may wish to intervene on behalf of a deserving candidate, it cannot overstep its jurisdiction by altering the established norms and benchmarks.’
‘Maintenance under Domestic Violence Act unrelated to inability of wife to maintain herself’; Delhi HC directs Trial Court to pass final order in domestic violence case
‘The allocation of the family resource cake should align with the financial needs of each family member’
Read why Delhi HC granted default bail to fake doctors for offence under Section 304 IPC, due to procedural error by the Police
With respect to the offence under Section 304, the duration of imprisonment can only be ascertained at the conclusion of trial, and the period of investigation for that offence shall only be 60 days and not 90 days, unless the facts of a case undisputedly indicate an intention of the accused to cause death or bodily injury likely to cause death.