{"id":328846,"date":"2024-08-17T12:00:48","date_gmt":"2024-08-17T06:30:48","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=328846"},"modified":"2024-08-22T18:18:20","modified_gmt":"2024-08-22T12:48:20","slug":"delhi-court-rejects-refund-claim-australia-tour-covid19-cancellation-lack-of-privity-of-contract-legal-news","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/08\/17\/delhi-court-rejects-refund-claim-australia-tour-covid19-cancellation-lack-of-privity-of-contract-legal-news\/","title":{"rendered":"[Privity of Contract] Delhi Court rejects refund claim of Australia Tour for 63 people due to COVID-19 cancellation"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi<\/span>: A commercial suit was filed by the plaintiff seeking recovery of Rs. 8,00,000 along with cost, interest at the rate 8% per annum from date of filing till realization and damages. Hemani Malhotra, J., held that there was no privity of contract between the plaintiff and defendant, plaintiff is held not entitled to recover any amount whatsoever from the defendant.<\/p>\n

The plaintiff, a manufacturer of stainless-steel kitchenware, tableware, and hotel ware since 1970, planned an international holiday to Australia as a reward for its dealers. To facilitate this, the plaintiff contacted Plan My Tours (PMT), who introduced them to the Director of the defendant company. The Director of the defendant company assured the plaintiff that his company organizes international tours for large groups and that Marvs Travels Australia Pvt. Ltd. based in Australia, would handle the tour arrangements.<\/p>\n

Pursuant to these assurances, the plaintiff agreed to book a package for a 6-night, 7-day tour to Sydney and Melbourne for 63 persons at a cost of 1245 Australian Dollars per person plus GST. The tour was scheduled for 06-06-2020, to 12-06-2020. The plaintiff made an advance payment of Rs. 8,00,000 to the defendant on 04-12-2019, for booking air tickets. Additionally, the plaintiff applied for visas for all participants, paying approximately Rs. 10,000 per person in VFS fees, totaling Rs. 6,30,000, which was non-refundable. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the subsequent lockdown, the plaintiff canceled the tour on 25-03-2020. Despite this, the defendant failed to refund the advance payment of Rs. 8,00,000 and ceased responding to the plaintiff’s communications, prompting the plaintiff to file the present suit.<\/p>\n

In its written statement, the defendant denied the plaintiff’s claims, asserting that it was not a service provider for travel or tourism. Instead, the defendant claimed to be a BPO\/Call Centre\/Agent for Marvs Travel Group (MTG), based in Melbourne, Australia. The defendant argued that MTG, and not the defendant, was responsible for organizing the tour and that MTG’s refund policy, which applied only if the tour was canceled 40 days prior, was not applicable to the defendant. The defendant also contended that all communications and agreements were between the plaintiff and MTG through PMT, with no direct dealings between the plaintiff and the defendant. Therefore, the defendant claimed that it could not be held liable for the refund as there was no privity of contract between the plaintiff and defendant.<\/p>\n

In response, the plaintiff reiterated its claims, asserting that the defendant was indeed liable as it had introduced its international counterpart and was responsible for the tour arrangements. The plaintiff argued that the defendant’s involvement was evident from the communications and documents exchanged.<\/p>\n

The issue under consideration was whether there was no privity of contract between the plaintiff and defendant, whether the plaintiff was entitled to recover Rs. 8,00,000\/-, whether the plaintiff was entitled to interest, and the relief to be granted.<\/p>\n

The plaintiff presented evidence through an Authorized Representative, who reiterated the plaint’s averments and relied on documents including an authority letter, a quotation prepared by the defendant, bank statements, an invitation letter, email exchanges regarding the cancellation, and a legal notice. The defendant’s Director countered this by presenting evidence that included advance deposit receipts, invoices, and GST returns, arguing that the defendant was merely an agent and that the payments were made to MTG Australia, not the defendant.<\/p>\n

The Court observed that the plaintiff’s evidence indicated that communications regarding the tour were primarily between PMT and MTG Australia, with no direct evidence linking the defendant to the refund obligations. The emails and documents showed that the defendant acted as an intermediary for MTG Australia, which was responsible for the tour arrangements and financial transactions. The lack of direct communication between the plaintiff and the defendant, coupled with the acknowledgment from MTG Australia regarding the receipt of the advance payment, supported the defendant’s claim of not being liable for the refund.<\/p>\n

Thus, the Court determined that there was no privity of contract between the plaintiff and the defendant, and thus, the defendant was not liable for the refund of Rs. 8,00,000. The plaintiff’s suit was dismissed based on the findings that the defendant was merely an agent and did not have a direct contractual obligation to refund the advance payment.<\/p>\n

[K Home Appliances v. Marvs Travel India Pvt Ltd, 2024 SCC OnLine Dis Crt (Del) 17<\/a>, decided on 12-08-2024<\/span>]<\/p>\n\n

Advocates who appeared in this case :<\/p>\n

Advocate Saurabh Sharma, Counsel for plaintiff<\/p>\n

Advocate Sahil Mongia, Counsel for defendant<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Delhi Court dismissed suit filed seeking recovery of money paid for an Australia Tour for 63 people cancelled due to COVID-19 Lockdown citing lack of privity of contract.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67516,"featured_media":328860,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,4721],"tags":[72173,72174,72172,72171,72170,72176,72175],"class_list":["post-328846","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-district-court","tag-australiatourrefund","tag-commercialcourtruling","tag-covid19tourcancellation","tag-delhicourtjudgment","tag-privityofcontract","tag-tishazaricourts","tag-tourcancellationrefund"],"yoast_head":"\nPrivity of Contract: Delhi Court rejects refund claim of Australia Tour for 63 people due to COVID-19 cancellation| SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Delhi Court rejects recovery of money paid for an Australia Tour for 63 people cancelled due to COVID-19 Lockdown citing lack of privity of contract.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/08\/17\/delhi-court-rejects-refund-claim-australia-tour-covid19-cancellation-lack-of-privity-of-contract-legal-news\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"[Privity of Contract] Delhi Court rejects refund claim of Australia Tour for 63 people due to COVID-19 cancellation\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Delhi Court rejects recovery of money paid for an Australia Tour for 63 people cancelled due to COVID-19 Lockdown citing lack of privity of contract.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/08\/17\/delhi-court-rejects-refund-claim-australia-tour-covid19-cancellation-lack-of-privity-of-contract-legal-news\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2024-08-17T06:30:48+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2024-08-22T12:48:20+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/08\/Privity-of-Contract.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"886\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"590\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Arunima\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"[Privity of Contract] Delhi Court rejects refund claim of Australia Tour for 63 people due to COVID-19 cancellation\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Arunima\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"4 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/08\/17\/delhi-court-rejects-refund-claim-australia-tour-covid19-cancellation-lack-of-privity-of-contract-legal-news\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/08\/17\/delhi-court-rejects-refund-claim-australia-tour-covid19-cancellation-lack-of-privity-of-contract-legal-news\/\",\"name\":\"Privity of Contract: Delhi Court rejects refund claim of Australia Tour for 63 people due to COVID-19 cancellation| SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/08\/17\/delhi-court-rejects-refund-claim-australia-tour-covid19-cancellation-lack-of-privity-of-contract-legal-news\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/08\/17\/delhi-court-rejects-refund-claim-australia-tour-covid19-cancellation-lack-of-privity-of-contract-legal-news\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/08\/Privity-of-Contract.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2024-08-17T06:30:48+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2024-08-22T12:48:20+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/12b21fd8f65a572f39f27151710e16cb\"},\"description\":\"Delhi Court rejects recovery of money paid for an Australia Tour for 63 people cancelled due to COVID-19 Lockdown citing lack of privity of contract.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/08\/17\/delhi-court-rejects-refund-claim-australia-tour-covid19-cancellation-lack-of-privity-of-contract-legal-news\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/08\/17\/delhi-court-rejects-refund-claim-australia-tour-covid19-cancellation-lack-of-privity-of-contract-legal-news\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/08\/17\/delhi-court-rejects-refund-claim-australia-tour-covid19-cancellation-lack-of-privity-of-contract-legal-news\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/08\/Privity-of-Contract.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/08\/Privity-of-Contract.webp\",\"width\":886,\"height\":590,\"caption\":\"Privity of Contract\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/08\/17\/delhi-court-rejects-refund-claim-australia-tour-covid19-cancellation-lack-of-privity-of-contract-legal-news\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"[Privity of Contract] Delhi Court rejects refund claim of Australia Tour for 63 people due to COVID-19 cancellation\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/12b21fd8f65a572f39f27151710e16cb\",\"name\":\"Arunima\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/8375ad8b08b1cbd970f4484d3218d81f3222a0ee3e463210f657780cb13e9569?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/8375ad8b08b1cbd970f4484d3218d81f3222a0ee3e463210f657780cb13e9569?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Arunima\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/scc-editor_9\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Privity of Contract: Delhi Court rejects refund claim of Australia Tour for 63 people due to COVID-19 cancellation| SCC Times","description":"Delhi Court rejects recovery of money paid for an Australia Tour for 63 people cancelled due to COVID-19 Lockdown citing lack of privity of contract.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/08\/17\/delhi-court-rejects-refund-claim-australia-tour-covid19-cancellation-lack-of-privity-of-contract-legal-news\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"[Privity of Contract] Delhi Court rejects refund claim of Australia Tour for 63 people due to COVID-19 cancellation","og_description":"Delhi Court rejects recovery of money paid for an Australia Tour for 63 people cancelled due to COVID-19 Lockdown citing lack of privity of contract.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/08\/17\/delhi-court-rejects-refund-claim-australia-tour-covid19-cancellation-lack-of-privity-of-contract-legal-news\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2024-08-17T06:30:48+00:00","article_modified_time":"2024-08-22T12:48:20+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/08\/Privity-of-Contract.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Arunima","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"[Privity of Contract] Delhi Court rejects refund claim of Australia Tour for 63 people due to COVID-19 cancellation","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Arunima","Est. reading time":"4 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/08\/17\/delhi-court-rejects-refund-claim-australia-tour-covid19-cancellation-lack-of-privity-of-contract-legal-news\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/08\/17\/delhi-court-rejects-refund-claim-australia-tour-covid19-cancellation-lack-of-privity-of-contract-legal-news\/","name":"Privity of Contract: Delhi Court rejects refund claim of Australia Tour for 63 people due to COVID-19 cancellation| SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/08\/17\/delhi-court-rejects-refund-claim-australia-tour-covid19-cancellation-lack-of-privity-of-contract-legal-news\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/08\/17\/delhi-court-rejects-refund-claim-australia-tour-covid19-cancellation-lack-of-privity-of-contract-legal-news\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/08\/Privity-of-Contract.webp","datePublished":"2024-08-17T06:30:48+00:00","dateModified":"2024-08-22T12:48:20+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/12b21fd8f65a572f39f27151710e16cb"},"description":"Delhi Court rejects recovery of money paid for an Australia Tour for 63 people cancelled due to COVID-19 Lockdown citing lack of privity of contract.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/08\/17\/delhi-court-rejects-refund-claim-australia-tour-covid19-cancellation-lack-of-privity-of-contract-legal-news\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/08\/17\/delhi-court-rejects-refund-claim-australia-tour-covid19-cancellation-lack-of-privity-of-contract-legal-news\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/08\/17\/delhi-court-rejects-refund-claim-australia-tour-covid19-cancellation-lack-of-privity-of-contract-legal-news\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/08\/Privity-of-Contract.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/08\/Privity-of-Contract.webp","width":886,"height":590,"caption":"Privity of Contract"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/08\/17\/delhi-court-rejects-refund-claim-australia-tour-covid19-cancellation-lack-of-privity-of-contract-legal-news\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"[Privity of Contract] Delhi Court rejects refund claim of Australia Tour for 63 people due to COVID-19 cancellation"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/12b21fd8f65a572f39f27151710e16cb","name":"Arunima","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/8375ad8b08b1cbd970f4484d3218d81f3222a0ee3e463210f657780cb13e9569?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/8375ad8b08b1cbd970f4484d3218d81f3222a0ee3e463210f657780cb13e9569?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Arunima"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/scc-editor_9\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/08\/Privity-of-Contract.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":281254,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/01\/07\/delhi-high-court-holds-termination-agreement-contract-of-service-valid-guise-of-indringement-suit-bhojpuri-khesari-lal-yadav-youtube-specific-relief-legalnews-legalawareness-legalresearch\/","url_meta":{"origin":328846,"position":0},"title":"An artist cannot be compelled to deal with another party against his own wish in perpetuity; Delhi High Court holds termination of agreement by Khesari Lal Yadav, valid","author":"Editor","date":"January 7, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Grant of injunction in favour of the plaintiff company would cause irreparable injury to the Artist which cannot be compensated in monetary terms as he would be forced to continue with the contract of personal service even though mutual trust has been lost between parties.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Delhi High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/12\/MicrosoftTeams-image-418.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":257638,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/11\/24\/how-is-compensation-for-termination-of-services-to-be-assessed-in-absence-of-applicability-of-special-statute\/","url_meta":{"origin":328846,"position":1},"title":"How is compensation for termination of services to be assessed in absence of applicability of special statute? Court decides in a case of termination of Law Officer’s services","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"November 24, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Saket Courts, New Delhi: Naresh Kumar Laka, Additional District Judge \u2013 03 decided a matter wherein an employee claimed full back wages from the date he was terminated till the date of his superannuation. On being aggrieved by the decision of Tis Hazari Court, both parties preferred separate appeals under\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Saket Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/08\/District-Court-Saket.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/08\/District-Court-Saket.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/08\/District-Court-Saket.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/08\/District-Court-Saket.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/08\/District-Court-Saket.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":283833,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/02\/14\/in-camera-proceedings-can-be-held-under-section-151-of-civil-procedure-code-1908-if-warranted-by-the-facts-and-circumstances-of-the-case-delhi-high-court\/","url_meta":{"origin":328846,"position":2},"title":"In Camera proceedings can be held under Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 if warranted by the facts and circumstances of the case: Delhi High Court","author":"Editor","date":"February 14, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"The Delhi High Court observed that merely because there was no express provision in the Code of Civil Procedure, it does not mean that in-camera proceedings cannot be allowed. Therefore, the Court held that in appropriate cases, the Court may under Section 151 of the Code pass any order for\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Delhi High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/12\/MicrosoftTeams-image-418.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":263116,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/03\/04\/grant-of-leave-to-defend-is-the-ordinary-rule-and-denial-is-an-exception-supreme-court-lays-down-detailed-guidelines-for-leave-to-defend-in-summary-suits\/","url_meta":{"origin":328846,"position":3},"title":"Grant of leave to defend is the ordinary rule and denial is an exception; Supreme Court lays down detailed guidelines for leave to defend in summary suits\u00a0 \u00a0","author":"Editor","date":"March 4, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court: While clarifying the law on leave to defend, the Division Bench of Vineet Saran and Dinesh Maheshwari*, JJ., held that even if there remains a reasonable doubt about the probability of defence, sterner or higher conditions could be imposed while granting leave to defend but, denying the leave\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-98.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-98.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-98.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-98.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-98.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":279919,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/12\/19\/delhi-high-court-grants-interim-injunction-in-favour-of-whitehat-education-technology-in-a-trade-mark-infringement-suit-for-its-mark-whitehat-jr\/","url_meta":{"origin":328846,"position":4},"title":"Delhi High Court grants interim injunction in favour of WhiteHat Education Technology in a trade mark infringement suit for its mark \u2018WhiteHat Jr\u2019","author":"Editor","date":"December 19, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"The Delhi High Court held that the marks \u2018WhiteHat Jr\u2019 and \u2018WhiteHat Sr\u2019 were deceptively similar and therefore, restrained the defendants from using any trade mark, trade name and domain name which would amount to infringement of plaintiff's mark \u2018WhiteHat Jr\u2019.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Delhi High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/12\/MicrosoftTeams-image-418.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":291593,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/05\/08\/delhi-high-court-grants-permanent-injunction-to-vivanta-mark-legal-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":328846,"position":5},"title":"Delhi High Court grants permanent injunction to a well-known mark \u2018VIVANTA’ against the mark \u2018VIVANTA VACATION CLUB’; awards Rs. 6 lakhs costs","author":"Simranjeet","date":"May 8, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"The use of \u2018VIVANTA VACATION CLUB' as a part of a trade name will likely deceive unwary consumers of their association with the mark \u2018VIVANTA' as a domain name can have all the characteristics of a trade mark and could result in an act of passing off.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"delhi high court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/328846","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67516"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=328846"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/328846\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/328860"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=328846"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=328846"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=328846"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}