#delhicourt Archives - Page 13 of 15

16 Aug

[POCSO Act] The absence of injuries to a victim’s private parts does not rule out penetrative sexual assault, according to the Delhi High Court.

Prime Legal

Blog # Pocso Act, #CPC, #delhi, #delhicourt, #delhihighcourt, #Sexual Assault

Title: Ranjeet Kumar Yadav v. State of NCT of Delhi

Decided on: 14th August, 2023

+ CRL.A. 50/2022

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL

Introduction

The Delhi High Court recently delivered a significant judgment regarding the interpretation of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. The case involved the conviction of an appellant for sexual offenses against a young victim. The central issue revolved around the absence of injuries on the victim’s private parts and its implications on the nature of the assault.

Facts

The appellant was convicted under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, along with sections 363 and 342 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), for sexual offenses against a four-and-a-half-year-old victim. The defense argued that there were contradictions in the victim’s statements and that the prosecution’s case rested solely on the victim’s testimony, lacking sufficient corroboration. They contended that the absence of certain injuries suggested a lesser offense of “touching” rather than penetration under the POCSO Act.

Analysis and Held

Justice Amit Bansal, upholding the conviction, clarified that the absence of injuries on the victim’s private parts cannot automatically negate the possibility of a penetrative sexual assault under the POCSO Act. He emphasized that injuries are not necessary in every case of sexual assault. The Court referred to previous judgments and established that the mere lack of injuries should not undermine the credibility of the victim’s testimony.

The Court addressed the alleged inconsistencies in the victim’s statements, noting that minor contradictions, particularly considering the young age of the victim, do not render her testimony unreliable. The Court highlighted the statutory presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act, which places the onus on the accused to rebut the presumption by leading evidence or discrediting the prosecution’s case.

In conclusion, the Delhi High Court held that the absence of injuries does not automatically disprove the occurrence of a penetrative sexual assault under the POCSO Act. The Court underscored the importance of evaluating the victim’s testimony in its entirety and considering the overall context of the case. The conviction of the appellant was upheld, and the appeal was dismissed.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by- Ankit Kaushik

Click here to view Judgement

16 Aug

Patents Act| Revocation Petition Under Section 64 Is Not A Suit Under Section 10 Of The CPC- Delhi High Court Rules

Prime Legal

blog, Blog #CPC, #delhi, #delhicourt, #delhihighcourt, #lab, #patentsact

Title: Dr Reddys Laboratories Limited & Anr. vs The Controller of Patents & Ors.

Decided on: 3rd August, 2023

+ C.O.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 3/2021

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR

Introduction

A recent ruling by the Delhi High Court, presided over by Justice C Hari Shankar, addressed the question of whether a revocation petition under Section 64 of the Patents Act can be considered a “suit” under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). The court held that a revocation petition cannot be treated as a suit for the purposes of Section 10 of the CPC.

Facts

The case pertained to a revocation petition (CO (Comm. IPD-PAT) 3/2021) filed by the petitioners challenging a patent held by respondent Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH under various clauses of Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970. Respondent Boehringer had also filed a lawsuit (COMS 5/2021) accusing the petitioners of patent infringement based on the same patent. The petitioners argued that the issues in both the revocation petition and the lawsuit were identical.

Counsel J Sai Deepak represented the petitioners, while CGSC Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar represented the respondents.

Analysis

The central issue was whether a revocation petition can be considered a “suit” under Section 10 of the CPC, which deals with the stay of proceedings in a suit. The court examined the provisions of the CPC and observed that Order IV Rule 1(1) of the CPC indirectly defines a “suit” as a plaint presented to a court or its appointed officer.

The court noted that a revocation petition under Section 64 of the Patents Act cannot be treated as a suit unless there is a provision deeming it so. It emphasized that the creation of deeming fictions is typically the prerogative of the legislature and cannot be undertaken by the court.

Held

The Delhi High Court held that a revocation petition under Section 64 of the Patents Act cannot be considered a suit for the purpose of invoking Section 10 of the CPC. Section 10 does not bring proceedings to a halt; it only stays the trial of a suit. The court clarified that even if Section 10 applies, the court hearing the later suit can still issue interlocutory orders. The court cited previous cases to support its position and concluded that the revocation petition should not be treated as a suit under Section 10 of the CPC.

Furthermore, the court observed that even on merit, a case existed for staying the revocation petition pending the outcome of the suit filed in the High Court of Himachal Pradesh.

In essence, the Delhi High Court’s ruling clarified that a revocation petition under Section 64 of the Patents Act cannot be equated with a suit for the purpose of applying Section 10 of the CPC.

Written by- Ankit Kaushik

Click here to view Judgement

16 Aug

SEBI’s Direction Under Section 11B(1) of the 1992 Act Cannot Prevent Bank From Auctioning Defaulter’s Property In Line With Bank’s Rights Under SARFAESI: Delhi High Court

Prime Legal

blog, Blog #bank, #delhi, #delhicourt, #delhihighcourt, #ICICI, #property, #SARFAESI

Title: ICICI Bank v. Deputy General Manager and Ors.

Decided on: 21st July, 2023

+ W.P.(C) 3796/2022

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV

The Delhi High Court has clarified the scope of SEBI’s powers under Section 11B of the SEBI Act, 1992, stating that SEBI can issue directions to any person or class of persons, including banks, under this section, irrespective of whether they are registered with SEBI under Section 12. However, the court emphasized that SEBI’s powers should be exercised in a manner that does not conflict with or curtail the effect of other laws. The court ruled that SEBI’s direction under Section 11B(1) cannot restrain a bank from auctioning a defaulter’s property according to the bank’s rights under the SARFAESI Act, 2002.

Facts

The case revolved around the petitioner bank and the third and fourth respondents who had borrowed a home loan from the bank and mortgaged a property. The Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) initiated an investigation against a company in which the third and fourth respondents were directors. SEBI ordered that the respondents not dispose of or alienate any assets without prior permission. Meanwhile, the bank noted the respondents’ default in loan repayment, classified their account as a Non-Performing Asset, and issued a demand notice under the SARFAESI Act, 2002. The bank also sought to auction the mortgaged property.

Senior Advocate Sanjiv Sen represented the petitioner, while Senior Advocate Arunabh Choudhury appeared for the respondent.

Analysis

The court analyzed the interplay between SEBI’s powers under the SEBI Act and the rights of banks under the SARFAESI Act. It noted that SEBI’s powers must be exercised carefully to avoid conflicting with other laws. The court pointed out that SEBI’s directions cannot change the material terms of the direction and should not be applicable to those to whom it is not intended.

The court emphasized that the SARFAESI Act prioritizes the debts of secured creditors over other dues. It highlighted the insertion of Section 26E in the SARFAESI Act to protect banks from interference by the state machinery in realizing their dues.

Held

The Delhi High Court held that the SEBI Act’s powers are legitimate and legal as long as they do not breach the mandate of other laws. In this case, the SARFAESI Act’s provisions took precedence over SEBI’s directions. The court concluded that the bank’s actions to realize its secured asset were not connected to the securities market and were governed by the SARFAESI Act. The SEBI Act’s directions were applicable to a broader set of assets and situations.

Thus, the court held that the bank’s rights under the SARFAESI Act should not be curtailed by SEBI’s directions, and the bank could proceed with the auction of the mortgaged property in accordance with the SARFAESI Act.

Written by- Ankit Kaushik

Click here to view Judgement

9 Aug

In a trademark infringement suit, the Delhi High Court awarded Sun Pharma a five-lakh-rupee penalty for its 2001 “Oxiplat” trademark.

Prime Legal

Blog #company, #delhi, #delhicourt, #delhihighcourt, #pharma

Title: Sun Parma Laboratories Ltd. v. Mylan Laboratories Limited & Anr.
Decided on: 2nd August, 2023

+ CS(COMM) 1098/2016 & I.A.1395/2023

CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

Introduction

The Delhi High Court, presided over by Justice Pratibha M Singh, has awarded costs of Rs. 5 lakhs in a trademark infringement suit to Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited. The case was brought forth by Sun Pharmaceuticals against two pharmaceutical companies over their registered mark “Soxplat”, which was alleged to infringe upon Sun Pharmaceuticals’ registered mark “Oxiplat”. The court’s decision was based on the substantial sales and investments made by Sun Pharmaceuticals in promoting and using the “Oxiplat” mark.

Facts

Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited filed a trademark infringement suit in 2016 against two pharmaceutical companies that had registered the mark “Soxplat” in 2014. Sun Pharmaceuticals had coined the mark “Oxiplat” back in 2001, which was used for medicinal preparations containing Oxaliplatin. The company sought a permanent injunction against the use of the “Soxplat” mark.

The Court noted that Sun Pharmaceuticals’ sales of medicinal formulations under the “Oxiplat” mark were substantial, with a sales turnover of approximately Rs. 26.5 crore at the time of filing the suit. The company had also invested significantly in advertising and promoting the mark.

During the course of the proceedings, the defendants’ trademark “Soxplat” was canceled, rendering them no longer registered for the mark.

Analysis

The Court took note of the substantial sales and investments made by Sun Pharmaceuticals in relation to the “Oxiplat” mark. It observed that the defendants had canceled their trademark “Soxplat” during the proceedings, indicating that there was no longer any dispute between the parties concerning the use of the mark. The Court refrained from expressing an opinion on the similarity of the two marks “Oxiplat” and “Soxplat,” as the defendants had abandoned the latter mark.

Held

The Delhi High Court awarded costs of Rs. 5 lakhs to Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited in the trademark infringement suit. The Court’s decision was influenced by the substantial sales and investments made by the plaintiff in relation to the “Oxiplat” mark and the subsequent cancellation of the defendants’ “Soxplat” mark. The defendants’ decision to abandon the mark led the Court to conclude that there was no longer any dispute regarding the marks’ similarity.

Written by- Ankit Kaushik

Click here to view Judgement

9 Aug

Courts Cannot Determine Whether Agreement Is A Works Contract Under MSMED Act; Only Arbitration Can Be Used- Delhi High Court

Prime Legal

Blog #agreement, #contract, #delhi, #delhicourt, #delhihighcourt, #MSMEDACT

Title: Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. v. Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council & Anr.
Decided on: 2nd August, 2023

+ LPA 565/2023 & CM Nos.37242/2023, 37243/2023 & 37244/2023

CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE & HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE

Introduction

The Delhi High Court has dismissed an appeal that challenged the jurisdiction of the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council (MSEFC) to refer disputes to arbitration under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSME Act). The court emphasized that the determination of whether an agreement is a works contract falls under the purview of the arbitrator under the MSME Act, and the court cannot adjudicate on such an issue.

Facts

The appeal arose from two reference orders issued by the MSEFC involving disputes related to civil works, electrical works, and structural works at ‘Wishtown Klassic Block Towers, Jaypee Greens, Noida (UP)’. The disputes involved Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. (JAL) and Krishna Buildestates Pvt. Ltd. (KBPL). KBPL had registered under the MSME Act and invoiced JAL for work contracts/agreements both before and after its MSME registration. Disputes arose from these contracts, and KBPL approached the MSEFC to refer the disputes to arbitration. The MSEFC issued reference orders referring the disputes to the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC).

Advocate Anil Dutt represented the Petitioner (JAL), while Advocate Avishkar Singhvi appeared for the Respondents (KBPL).

Analysis

The Delhi High Court examined the contention that the agreements were distinct composite work contracts involving both services and goods. The court noted that the Single Judge had held that the work contracts initiated before KBPL’s MSME registration but with some agreements’ bills and work taking place post-registration were subject to the MSME Act. The court further observed that the disputes involved both services and goods and referred to several factors supporting the application of the MSME Act, such as the interlinked agreements and ongoing work.

The court held that whether an agreement is a works contract falls under the jurisdiction of the arbitrator as per the MSME Act. The court stated that it cannot determine this issue and that the Single Judge had rightly left it open to be decided by the arbitrator.

Held

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the MSEFC’s jurisdiction to refer the disputes to arbitration under the MSME Act. The court reiterated that the determination of whether the contracts were work contracts is within the scope of the arbitrator’s authority and cannot be adjudicated upon by the court. The court emphasized the importance of upholding the fairness and credibility of the arbitration process.

Written by- Ankit Kaushik

Click here to view Judgement

1 … 11 12 13 14 15