0

District Courts to Enforce Mandatory E-Filing and Digitization for Civil and Criminal Cases: Delhi High Court

Blog ,

Case Title:  Karan S Thukral v. The District & Sessions Judge & Ors

Case No: W.P.(C) No. 6082 of 2019

Decided on:  4th January, 2024

CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MANMOHAN, HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA

Introduction

A public interest litigation was instituted to address the absence of a standardized procedure for acknowledging pleadings, documents, and applications filed in the district courts of Delhi.

Court’s analysis and decision

The Delhi High Court has issued a recent directive mandating the electronic filing of pleadings, documents, and interim applications in both civil and criminal complaint cases across all District Courts in the national capital.

Instructing the implementation of the “Centralised Filing System” for filing related to both ongoing and pending cases, a division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora stated:

“Mandatory e-filing of pleadings, documents and interim applications shall be adhered to in the jurisdictions already notified vide notification no.12/Rules/DHC dated 22nd February, 2022 under e-filing Rules of the High Court of Delhi, 2021.”

The court issued a series of directives aimed at enhancing the e-filing system, streamlining the record-keeping process, and promoting digitization of decided cases across all district courts. The court instructed the Registrar General to take necessary measures to expand mandatory e-filing to cover all remaining Civil Jurisdictions and Criminal complaint cases in District Courts, aligning with the e-filing Rules of the High Court of Delhi, 2021. A dedicated effort to digitize the record of decided cases in record rooms of all District Courts was mandated, with the provision of essential ICT infrastructure and manpower by the respective Principal District & Sessions Judges. Furthermore, the court specified that within three weeks, the initiation of the weeding-out process for files ready for disposal, based on established criteria for petty cases and those of historical significance, should commence across all District Courts.

The court has established a committee to oversee the elimination of records in all District Courts, to be completed by Principal District & Sessions Judges within two weeks. The committee will consist of a Senior District Judge, the officer in charge of the records room, a DJS officer, and the in-charge/superintendent of the records room. It will conduct fortnightly reviews of the disposal and elimination of records and submit reports to the respective Principal District & Sessions Judges.

Furthermore, all District Courts must submit a quarterly report for the first quarter of 2024 to the High Court’s Registrar General for evaluation and monitoring by April 15. The court directed Principal District & Sessions Judges to ensure the availability of certified copies of records to applicants, regardless of the records’ status in the records rooms.

The bench emphasized the importance of strengthening the e-filing process in Delhi’s District judiciary and making e-filing mandatory for Civil and Criminal complaint cases in the remaining jurisdictions. The court suggested gradually discouraging physical filing in already notified jurisdictions to promote strict adherence to e-filing rules.

“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- Afshan Ahmad

Click here to read the judgement

0

The High Court of Delhi laid back manufacturers from using the Nilkranti device mark in a suit by Nilkamal however holds no resemblance between the marks.

Blog

Title of the case: NILKAMAL CRATES AND CONTAINERS & ANR.

CS(COMM) 707/2023

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

Judgement dated: 06.11.2023

Introduction

The High Court of Delhi has laid back two plastic chair manufacturers from using the Nilkranti device mark or any other device mark that is purplex or ambiguous similar to the device mark of Nilkamal Justice C Hari Shankar however rejected Nilkamal’s prayer in its trademark infringement suit to restrain the manufacturers from using “Nilkranti” as a word mark.

Facts of the case

The plaintiffs are aggrieved by the use, by the defendants, of the mark NILKRANTI and the logo. The defendants, too, admittedly, use the impugned marks for plastic molded chairs.

an absolute inunction ought to be issued against the defendants using the mark NILKRANTI, whether as a word mark or as a logo it is submitted that t it would be perfectly open to the defendants to use “KRANTI” with any prefix other than “NIL” and that, by employing the “NIL” prefix, seen in conjunction with the similarity between the logo that the defendants have chosen to adopt vis-à-vis the plaintiffs’ logo, the defendants’ intention to come as close to the plaintiffs as possible is evident.

the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Cadila Health Care Ltd v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd has been placed.

Mr. Satish Kumar submits that the mark NILKRANTI, as used by the defendants, cannot be said to be similar to NILKAMAL, either as a word mark or in the form of the device.

also submits that he has been using the NILKRANTI mark since May June 2017 and that, therefore, at this distance of time, it would not be in the fitness of things to injure him from using the mark further.

Analysis of the court

The prayer of the plaintiffs to restrain the defendants from using NILKRANTI as a word mark, either for chairs or for any other item, is rejected.

the defendants shall stand restrained from using the device mark, or any other device mark which is confusingly or deceptively similar to the device marks and of the plaintiffs.

It is clarified that the defendants would be at liberty to use “NILKRANTI” in any other manner that does not infringe the device marks of the plaintiffs

Insofar as the chairs which have been inventoried and seized by the local Commissioner pursuant to the orders passed by this Court are concerned, the defendants would be at liberty to dispose of the chairs, but after removing, from the chairs, the infringing labels.

Any such removal of labels and disposal of chairs shall take place in the presence of the representatives of the plaintiffs. In case any such removal is to be undertaken, details thereof shall be placed on record before this Court, by the defendants, on affidavit.

The suit stands disposed

 

“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 falls into the 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

Kaulav Roy Chowdhury

Click here to view judgement

 

0

The Delhi High Court held that it is not allowed for a litigant to adopt opposing positions in the same litigation.

Blog , ,

Title: ANR International Private Limited v. Mahavir Singhal & Ors.

Decided on: 03 November, 2023

+ FAO (COMM) 164/2023 & CM APPL. 40580/2023

CORAM: Hon’ble Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta

Introduction

A party cannot be allowed to approve and reprobate on the same facts at the same time, the Delhi High Court stated in dismissing a plea that contested a trial court ruling dated June 2, 2023.

Facts of the Case

The current appeal challenges an order dated June 02, 2023 issued by the District Judge of Commercial Court-01, Shahdara, Karkardooma, Delhi, dismissing an application filed by defendant No. 1 in the suit bearing CS(COMM.) No. 541/2022, pursuant to Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Courts analysis and decision

The court noted that the courts would be encouraging and abetting such litigants to break the law, especially fiscal laws, and would be allowing the litigants to periodically change their appearance to their benefit and the detriment of the public coffers and the general public if they were allowed to take a different stance during litigation than they have been taking while abiding by various laws. It went on to say that the same cannot be allowed and rejected the plea as not maintainable. The court went on to say that the respondent used Section 21 of the Act of 1996 to invoke the arbitration clause, despite the appellant’s initial denial due to incorrect counsel.

“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- Hargunn Kaur Makhija

Click here to view your judgement

0

The Delhi High Court – National Eligibility Test Junior Research Fellowship (NET-JRF) can’t be treated as National Fellowship for Schedule Caste Students (NFSCS)

Blog , ,

Title: Devendra Singh Chaudhri v. Jawahar Lal Nehru University Through its Registrar and Others

Decided on: September 18, 2023.

W.P.(C) 3699/2023 & CM APPLs. 14305/2023, 15326/2023

CORAM: PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J.

Introduction

The Delhi High Court held that the National Eligibility Test-Junior Research Fellowship ( NET-JRF) and National Fellowship FOR Schedule Caste Students (NFSCS) both are different things and every university has to follow UGC guidelines for the curriculum of the university. University is not bound to take admission of any students who does not fulfill the admission criteria.

Facts of the case

The facts of the present case is the petitioner had appeared for the National Eligibility Test- Junior Research Fellowship (NET-JRF) in 2019-2020 cycle and was awarded the National Fellowship for Schedule Caste Students (NFSCS) award later dated 30-11-2020. The petitioner then desirous to take admission in respondent university for pursuing Ph.D. in the course of Medieval History, applied on 19-09-2022. For the said course in the said application he mentioned the title of the national qualified test as NFSCS. The petitioner completed the requisite criteria for the admission and have been called for the interview and got his name in the merit list in the category of SC as rank 1 but when he went to complete the formalities of the admission then the respondent university denied to take his admission and showed that under the guidelines of UGS petitioner is not eligible to take admission in the said course as the only criteria to take admission in said course is qualification in (NET-JRF) and the petitioner has not qualified the (NET-JRF) although he is eligible to take the fellowship under the scheme of National Fellowship for Schedule Caste Students (NFSCS).

Courts analysis and decision

In the present case the court has observed that the petitioner had not qualified the (NET-JRF) rather he had qualified for (NFSCS) which is not the criteria for taking the admission in Ph.D.

The Court said that it is the University who decides the admission criteria for the courses and took the example of Supreme Court in the case of Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary v. Paritosh Bhupesh Kumar Seith. Wherein the Hon’ble Supreme took the view that Court should not interfere in the matters of educational institutions as they have there on specialist in the fields of technical education and other important things also lies and said that the courts are neither equipped nor have the technical background and can’t substitute themselves in the place of professional bodies and take decisions in academic matters. The eligibility criteria mentioned in the prospectus is final and candidates should follow the prospectus guidelines of particular institutions or universities in which they wanted to take admission. The court said that as the petitioner does not fulfill the criteria of admission as per the university guidelines as the admission criteria is qualifying (NET-JRF) and the petitioner avails only (NFSCS) which did does not come under the criteria of university guidelines for taking admission in Ph.D. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed with pending application.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won 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 lawyers, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer ,best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by:-Aamir Hussain

click here to view your judgement

0

The Delhi High court held that arbitrator has the power to award interest pendente lite

Blog ,

Title: Punjab National Bank and Others V. Ram Murti Devi and Another

Decided on: September 15, 2023

LPA 633/2023, CM Appl. 47587/2023, CM Appl. 47588/2023, CM Appl. 47589/2023, CM Appl. 47590/2023

Corum: (Satish Chandra Sharma, C.J. AND Sanjiv Narula, J.)

Introduction

The Delhi High Court held that arbitrator has the power to award interest pendente lite, while doing so they must also act and make his award in accordance with the general law and the agreement. A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjiv Narula dismissed the L.P.A. filled by Appellant..

Facts of the cases

Shri Anoop Singh joined the services of the Appellant as Home Guard on dated January 16,     1986. Unfortunately he passed away on dated January 14, 2004 while harnessing his duty. Thereafter, on dated March 03, 2004, the respondent submitted an application to the Appellant seeking of respondent 2 to the service of the Appellant on compassionate ground. Similarly, another application made in the month of April 2004.

The Appellant vide a HRD Circular No. 235 dated 07.01.2005 issued a scheme for payment of ex – gratia compensation in lieu of compassionate appointments with retrospective effect to all pending application as on 29.10.2004.

The respondent made similar application seeking the appointment on compassionate grounds on (i) 17-03-2005; (ii) 24-03-2005. In response the vide letter(s) dated (i) 30-03-2005; (ii) 26-04-2005; (iii) 05-05-2005; (iv) 24-09-2005, the Appellant inform the respondents the should apply under the ex-gratia scheme in lieu of compassionate grounds.

Courts analysis and decision

The respondent filled a writ petition praying for the direction to the Appellant under the compassionate grounds on terms of vide circular of HRD No. 09/1997 dated 20-03-1997 i.e. an scheme of appointment under compassionate ground.

Vide on dated 25-04-2008, the writ petition dismissed in default. Thereafter, an application for recall of the said order was preferred. Vide an order dated 27.07.2009, the Recall Application was allowed, and the Writ Petition was restored to its original number.

In this context the Ld. Single judge allowed the application by way of impugned judgement. The Ld. Judge saw the matter and decide that the respondent has no right to take the ground of compassionate appointment under the ground of compassionate scheme as the same has been replaced with the ex-gratia scheme during the pendency of respondents application. The Ld. Judge observed that the respondent is entitled to get the compensation under the ex-gratia scheme and further significant lapse of time of the demise of the Late Shree Anoop Singh, the Ld. Judge directed to the Appellant to also pay the interest at the rate of 6% per annum with effect from the date of filing of writ petition i.e., 30-08-2005.

On dismissing the L.P.A. of the Appellant the Delhi High Court given the reason of upholding the impugned judgement and said that a person is deprived of the use of legitimate money has right to be compensated for the deprivation, call it any name. It may be called interest, compensation or damages.

“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 divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by:-  Aamir Hussain

“Click here to view your judgement”

1 … 4 5 6