While it was a largely lacklustre week for the Delhi High Court, some cases succeeded in grabbing attention due to the nature of disputes involved. Here is a look at some of the significant developments from the Delhi High Court this week..Monday, March 28.FDC Ban: The Government’s defense.The crucial FDC drug ban case, being heard on a daily basis by Justice RS Endlaw, had seen Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal begin arguments for the petitioners. This time, it was the Central Government’s turn to defend against the onslaught of nearly 60 companies challenging the Health Ministry’s Notification..ASG Sanjay Jain argued that the banned drugs that were ‘unsafe’ and not efficacious. On the issue of licensing, Jain argued that most manufacturing licenses were given by State Governments and when the State Governments did not take any action against the said ‘harmful’ drugs, the Parliamentary Committee had to intervene and conduct a proper drug trial..Later in the week, Jain also told the Bench that it was not incumbent upon the Government to seek advice from any Committee to indulge in a legislative measure..The case will now be taken up on Monday, April 4..Tuesday, March 29.Red FM in High Court again.Digital Radio, the company that owns radio channel Red FM, had moved the High Court last year challenging denial of renewal of license by the Union Ministry and thereby impeding its migration into Phase III regime from Phase II..Senior Advocate Rajiv Nayyar had appeared for the company, arguing that a Division Bench of the High Court had already granted permission to the company for migrating from Phase II to Phase III. He sought directions from the Bench to the Union Government that the said exercise shall be completed in a ‘time-bound’ manner. Accordingly, the Bench had directed that the Home Ministry to take a decision over the said issue within a period of two weeks and in the meanwhile, also allowed for the interim orders to continue..This week, the Union Government requested for some more time to take a decision and grant the necessary certificate. The matter was subsequently adjourned to May 3..Wednesday, March 30.The ISRO-Antrix tussle over arbitration.An arbitral award had held Antrix (ISRO’s commercial wing) liable to pay damages worth $672 million to Devas Multimedia Pvt. Ltd for cancelling a contract four years ago, citing national security reasons..The said award was rendered by the International Court of Arbitration and pertains to a January 2005 agreement between Devas and Antrix, under which Devas was to lease as much as 70 megahertz of S-band spectrum from two satellites that were to be launched by ISRO..The challenge in the Delhi High Court was by Devas Multimedia which said that Antrix Corporation Ltd had initiated proceedings in a city court in Bangalore, and that court did not have jurisdiction in the matter. This week, Rajeev Nayyar told the Court that after the recent changes to the arbitration law in India, the seat of arbitration is now construed as an exclusive jurisdiction clause..He further argued that in light of a specific clause in the arbitration agreement between the parties, which stated that the seat of arbitration would be in Delhi then the jurisdiction of courts in Bangalore would not be attracted at all. Nayyar also submitted that if this High Court could not entertain Antrix’s claims, then they could approach the appropriate Court and would not be left remedy-less..After hearing Nayyar’s arguments, the Bench adjourned the case for further hearing on April 18..Thursday, March 31.Hashimpura, P Chidambaram, and one Subramanian Swamy.The appeals filed against the acquittals in the Hashimpura Massacre include an appeal filed by Janta Party supremo Subramanian Swamy that assailed a trial court’s order of March 2013 dismissing his petition to probe the role of Chidambaram in the case..This week when the case came up for hearing before Justices GS Sistani and Sangita Dhingra Sehgal, Swamy told the Court that an investigation into the role of former Finance Minister P Chidambaram in the Hashimpura massacre was necessary. Chidambaram was the Minister of State for Internal Security when the riots took place in Uttar Pradesh..The Bench however declined to entertain any additional applications in this regard for the reason that it may further delay proceedings; before directing the State Government to file necessary documents of the case and sought replies on the appeals of NHRC and others. The case will now be heard on May 19..Friday, April 1.Service Tax & Senior Advocates: Relief by the High Court.The Delhi High Court Bar Association (DHCBA) knocked the doors of the High Court challenging a Notification of the Union Government that imposed service tax on Senior Advocates from April 1, 2016 onward. This tax would be charged on a forward charge basis and/or reverse charge basis..The Association had focused its plea on the point that services provided by a Senior Advocate could not be deemed as ‘service’ for the purpose of taxation..Justices Dr. S. Muralidhar and RK Gauba stayed the relevant provisions imposing service tax to ‘maintain consistency’ with a recent Gujarat High Court order of March 30 that had also directed an ad-interim stay of Notification No. 18/2016-ST and Notification No. 9/2016–ST with respect to the same issue..The Bench has also issued notice to the Union Government over the petition. The case will now be heard in September..IPR Roundup [Saikrishna & Associates and Anand & Anand].1. Fox Star Studios India Pvt Ltd & Anr Vs Speed Play & Ors..Platintiff submitted that proceedings were pending before the Joint Registrar and so were the completion of pleadings. The Bench took this statement on record and adjourned the case to September..2. Wings Entertainment Ltd Vs Star India Pvt Ltd..The Bench was informed about a Division Bench judgment on how the decision over the registration of trademark would rest solely with the IPAB irrespective of the suit proceedings. Taking into consideration the position taken by the larger Bench, the Court adjourned the case to August for the IPAB decision to come through on the issue..3. OLX BV & Ors Vs Padawan Ltd & Ors..This suit was a copyright and trademark infringement suit filed by OLX against a UK based company, seeking an injunction against the company from using the OLX logo and using the copyright information, literary work, listings on the website of OLX. Plaintiff also argued that the Defendant No 1 (the company) was creating large volumes of data from the Plaintiff’s proprietary database and thereby infringing Plaintiff’s copyright over their literary work..The suit also arraigned various internet service providers and the Plaintiff argued that it was through their medium that the Defendant was able to infringe copyright over Plaintiff’s work and also violate the trademark logo of OLX..The Bench restrained the Defendant from violating in any manner, the copyright held by the Plaintiff on its literary work, listings, information etc. The Court also restrained the Defendant from using the trademark or logo of OLX. Due to the location of the Defendant company, the Plaintiff was allowed to serve them by email. The case will now be heard on July 8.
While it was a largely lacklustre week for the Delhi High Court, some cases succeeded in grabbing attention due to the nature of disputes involved. Here is a look at some of the significant developments from the Delhi High Court this week..Monday, March 28.FDC Ban: The Government’s defense.The crucial FDC drug ban case, being heard on a daily basis by Justice RS Endlaw, had seen Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal begin arguments for the petitioners. This time, it was the Central Government’s turn to defend against the onslaught of nearly 60 companies challenging the Health Ministry’s Notification..ASG Sanjay Jain argued that the banned drugs that were ‘unsafe’ and not efficacious. On the issue of licensing, Jain argued that most manufacturing licenses were given by State Governments and when the State Governments did not take any action against the said ‘harmful’ drugs, the Parliamentary Committee had to intervene and conduct a proper drug trial..Later in the week, Jain also told the Bench that it was not incumbent upon the Government to seek advice from any Committee to indulge in a legislative measure..The case will now be taken up on Monday, April 4..Tuesday, March 29.Red FM in High Court again.Digital Radio, the company that owns radio channel Red FM, had moved the High Court last year challenging denial of renewal of license by the Union Ministry and thereby impeding its migration into Phase III regime from Phase II..Senior Advocate Rajiv Nayyar had appeared for the company, arguing that a Division Bench of the High Court had already granted permission to the company for migrating from Phase II to Phase III. He sought directions from the Bench to the Union Government that the said exercise shall be completed in a ‘time-bound’ manner. Accordingly, the Bench had directed that the Home Ministry to take a decision over the said issue within a period of two weeks and in the meanwhile, also allowed for the interim orders to continue..This week, the Union Government requested for some more time to take a decision and grant the necessary certificate. The matter was subsequently adjourned to May 3..Wednesday, March 30.The ISRO-Antrix tussle over arbitration.An arbitral award had held Antrix (ISRO’s commercial wing) liable to pay damages worth $672 million to Devas Multimedia Pvt. Ltd for cancelling a contract four years ago, citing national security reasons..The said award was rendered by the International Court of Arbitration and pertains to a January 2005 agreement between Devas and Antrix, under which Devas was to lease as much as 70 megahertz of S-band spectrum from two satellites that were to be launched by ISRO..The challenge in the Delhi High Court was by Devas Multimedia which said that Antrix Corporation Ltd had initiated proceedings in a city court in Bangalore, and that court did not have jurisdiction in the matter. This week, Rajeev Nayyar told the Court that after the recent changes to the arbitration law in India, the seat of arbitration is now construed as an exclusive jurisdiction clause..He further argued that in light of a specific clause in the arbitration agreement between the parties, which stated that the seat of arbitration would be in Delhi then the jurisdiction of courts in Bangalore would not be attracted at all. Nayyar also submitted that if this High Court could not entertain Antrix’s claims, then they could approach the appropriate Court and would not be left remedy-less..After hearing Nayyar’s arguments, the Bench adjourned the case for further hearing on April 18..Thursday, March 31.Hashimpura, P Chidambaram, and one Subramanian Swamy.The appeals filed against the acquittals in the Hashimpura Massacre include an appeal filed by Janta Party supremo Subramanian Swamy that assailed a trial court’s order of March 2013 dismissing his petition to probe the role of Chidambaram in the case..This week when the case came up for hearing before Justices GS Sistani and Sangita Dhingra Sehgal, Swamy told the Court that an investigation into the role of former Finance Minister P Chidambaram in the Hashimpura massacre was necessary. Chidambaram was the Minister of State for Internal Security when the riots took place in Uttar Pradesh..The Bench however declined to entertain any additional applications in this regard for the reason that it may further delay proceedings; before directing the State Government to file necessary documents of the case and sought replies on the appeals of NHRC and others. The case will now be heard on May 19..Friday, April 1.Service Tax & Senior Advocates: Relief by the High Court.The Delhi High Court Bar Association (DHCBA) knocked the doors of the High Court challenging a Notification of the Union Government that imposed service tax on Senior Advocates from April 1, 2016 onward. This tax would be charged on a forward charge basis and/or reverse charge basis..The Association had focused its plea on the point that services provided by a Senior Advocate could not be deemed as ‘service’ for the purpose of taxation..Justices Dr. S. Muralidhar and RK Gauba stayed the relevant provisions imposing service tax to ‘maintain consistency’ with a recent Gujarat High Court order of March 30 that had also directed an ad-interim stay of Notification No. 18/2016-ST and Notification No. 9/2016–ST with respect to the same issue..The Bench has also issued notice to the Union Government over the petition. The case will now be heard in September..IPR Roundup [Saikrishna & Associates and Anand & Anand].1. Fox Star Studios India Pvt Ltd & Anr Vs Speed Play & Ors..Platintiff submitted that proceedings were pending before the Joint Registrar and so were the completion of pleadings. The Bench took this statement on record and adjourned the case to September..2. Wings Entertainment Ltd Vs Star India Pvt Ltd..The Bench was informed about a Division Bench judgment on how the decision over the registration of trademark would rest solely with the IPAB irrespective of the suit proceedings. Taking into consideration the position taken by the larger Bench, the Court adjourned the case to August for the IPAB decision to come through on the issue..3. OLX BV & Ors Vs Padawan Ltd & Ors..This suit was a copyright and trademark infringement suit filed by OLX against a UK based company, seeking an injunction against the company from using the OLX logo and using the copyright information, literary work, listings on the website of OLX. Plaintiff also argued that the Defendant No 1 (the company) was creating large volumes of data from the Plaintiff’s proprietary database and thereby infringing Plaintiff’s copyright over their literary work..The suit also arraigned various internet service providers and the Plaintiff argued that it was through their medium that the Defendant was able to infringe copyright over Plaintiff’s work and also violate the trademark logo of OLX..The Bench restrained the Defendant from violating in any manner, the copyright held by the Plaintiff on its literary work, listings, information etc. The Court also restrained the Defendant from using the trademark or logo of OLX. Due to the location of the Defendant company, the Plaintiff was allowed to serve them by email. The case will now be heard on July 8.