DAMODARAM SANJIVAYYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

VISHAKAPATNAM

TOPIC

JUSTICE GITA MITTAL

SUBJECT

INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES

FACULTY

Mr. R. BHARATH KUMAR

STUDENT NAME

L. SAI RADHA KRISHNA

ROLL.NO & SEC

2016055/A/VI

1
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I am using this opportunity to express my gratitude to everyone who supported me through

the course of the project. I would like to thank our teacher who encouraged and supported me
for doing this project. And I am sincerely grateful to them.

2
 TABLE OF CONTENTS:

1) ABSTRACT________________________________________________________04

2) LIST OF CASES____________________________________________________05

3) AIM OF THE STUDY________________________________________________06

4) RESEARCH METHODOLOGY________________________________________06

5) BODY OF THE PROJECT_____________________________________________07

6) OUTCOMES OF THE PROJECT_______________________________________30

3
 ABSTRACT

Justice Gita Mittal was a top lawyer in the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court of India.
She was called to Bench of the Delhi High Court as an Additional Judge on 16th July, 2004.
She is first ever female Chief Justice of Jammu and Kashmir High Court.

She has written extensively on ‘Access to Justice’; protection of human rights; impact of
incarceration on women; corporate social responsibility; death penalty; impact of religion,
culture, tradition on judging; corporate laws; procedure and intellectual property litigation
and environmental laws and issues. Justice Gita Mittal was invited to the Vatican City on an
invitation by the Pope Francis to speak at a summit of Judges and Prosecutors on Human
Trafficking.

The report of the Justice JS Verma Committee, constituted in the aftermath of the 2012 Delhi
gang rape case to suggest amendments on Criminal Law has extensively drawn from the
pronouncement in Virender v. State authored by Justice Gita Mittal.

Justice Gita Mittal is reputed for taking suo moto cognizance of matters of public interest.
During her tenure in Delhi High Court, she has initiated several suo moto public interest
cases on safety of women, juvenile justice, drug menace, public order, civic amenities and
even individual cases of extreme injustice.

Justice Gita Mittal received the Distinguished Alumna Award in 2008 from the Vice
President of India, awarded by the Lady Shriram College for Women. In 2018, President
Ram Nath Kovind awarded Justice Gita Mittal with the Nari Shakti Puruskar, India's highest
civilian honour for women.

4
 LIST OF CASES

1. V. Venugopal rao vs. Union of india and ors. MANU/DE/4309/2012

2. Richa malhan vs. Army public school and ors MANU/DE/3143/2005
3. Mex switchgears pvt. Ltd vs. Omex cable industries MANU/DE/1518/2018
4. Akhil kumar and ors. Vs. University of delhi & ors. Writ Petition (C) Nos. 5451-
55/2000
5. Anand kumar vs. The management state bank of india MANU/DE/2997/2005
6. Nagendra singh vs. Uoi and ors MANU/DE/4271/2010
7. Prem kumar prasad vs. Jamia hamdard (du) MANU/DE/2120/2008
8. Shilvi nigam vs. Central board of secoandry education and ors.
MANU/DE/2136/2008
9. Nzph railway employees coop. G.h. socy. Ltd vs. Delhi vidyut board
MANU/DE/0338/2005
10. Veer bhan vs. The chief of the army staff & ors MANU/DE/1046/2004
11. Cheena nanda vs. Govt. Of n.c.t. of delhi & ors. MANU/DE/3129/2005
12. Sarika singh vs. C.b.s.e. MANU/DE/2145/2008
13. Bashiram vs. Union of india and ors MANU/DE/1048/2004
14. Navpreet singh sandhu vs. Union of india & ors MANU/DE/1463/2010
15. Espn software india private ltd. Vs. Tudu enterprise and ors. MANU/DE/1061/2011
16. Santosh kumar singh vs. Sri guru gobind singh college of commerce & ors.
MANU/DE/2119/2008
17. Intel corporation vs. A. Sailesh MANU/DE/9853/2007
18. Bhawani singh rathore vs. Union of india and ors MANU/DE/9355/2017
19. State of j&k and ors. Vs. Hamid ahmad wani & ors. LPASW No. 109/2018
20. State of j& k and ors. Vs. Abdul gani mir LPASW No. 132/2018 and IA No. 01/2018
21. Ayush tiwari vs. Faculty of law and ors. W.P.(C) 3510/2018
22. Rama kant shukla vs. Uoi and ors NO.411/2014 IN W.P.(C) 658/2005
23. Cadbury india limited and ors. Vs. Neeraj food products MANU/DE/1596/2007

5
 AIM OF THE STUDY:

The aim of the study is to know how different cases are interpreted in different ways by the
Chief Justice Gita Mittal.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY:

Research Methodology used was doctrinal methodology. Descriptive and analytical type of
study is done in this project. Doctrinal Methodology includes doing research from books,
articles, journals, case study, and also taking the help of web articles. OXFORD style of
citation is used in this project.

SUBJECT AREAS CHOSEN:

The cases related to Civil and Intellectual Property Rights are studied and analysed by the
researcher in the project.

6
 CASE ANALYSIS

CASE 1

NAME OF THE CASE: V. VENUGOPAL RAO VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

NAME OF THE COURT: HIGH COURT OF DELHI

BENCH COMPOSITION: GITA MITTAL AND J.R. MIDHA

CASE CITATION: MANU/DE/4309/2012

SUBJECT: CIVIL

FACTS: The petitioner was initially appointed in CISF as Constable on 22nd June, 1998. On
25th March, 2010, the petitioner was transferred from the CISF Unit in Tamil Nadu to the
CISF Unit GBS, New Delhi. The CISF, APS Headquarters, New Delhi had issued a letter
dated 3rd February, 2010 wherein the training calendar for the year 2010 had been specified
which included the schedule for the various courses.

He fulfilled the eligibility criteria for undergoing the Quick Reaction Team (QRT) basic
course scheduled to be held at the CISF, RTC, Munadali, Orissa. He underwent a pre-course
of short duration at CISF, STC, Mahipalpur, New Delhi for screening test and by the
communication dated 20th April, 2010 was found suitable for undergoing QRT basic course.

petitioner has contended that the petitioner had fallen sick on 23rd April, 2010 and had
reported to the doctor of the Emergency at the RML Hospital. It is the petitioner's contention
that despite his being sick, he has still proceeded for the course as directed

ISSUE: whether a serving officer is bound to inform his officials about his medical illness?

CONCLUSION: The judge followed the literal interpretation in this case as there is a duty on
the petitioner side to inform his higher officials about his medical illness, since he did not
inform and continued the course the respondents are not liable.

There is no legal fault in action taken by the respondents so the writ petition is dismissed,

7
CASE 2

NAME OF THE CASE: RICHA MALHAN VS. ARMY PUBLIC SCHOOL AND ORS.

NAME OF THE COURT: HIGH COURT OF DELHI

BENCH COMPOSITION: GITA MITTAL

CASE CITATION: MANU/DE/3143/2005

SUBJECT: CIVIL

FACTS: The petitioner has secured 67.2% marks in the class 10th Board examinations. She
was admitted to the science stream in class 11th. Unfortunately, before the time the petitioner
was to take the examinations, she started having high fever. She was advised blood test in
order to get the correct diagnose of the cause of her illness. On the 23rd February, 2005, the
petitioner received the haematology/serology of her blood test whereby it was reported as
suffering from enteric fever commonly known as typhoid.

The petitioner took all the examinations on the scheduled date despite her sickness. The final
examination started on 4th March, 2005 and ended on 17th March, 2005. Unfortunately when
the result was declared on 30th March, 2005, the petitioner has been detained in class 11th for
not getting the passing marks in two subjects i.e. physics and chemistry. He contends that
according to the promotion policy of the respondent school, they conduct re-test for students
who have failed in different subjects. However, a student has to have obtained at least 25%
marks in each subject to be promoted. If a student scores less than 25% in any subject, even if
the summative total is 33% or more, the student is treated as failed/re-test as the case may be.

The petitioner is aggrieved by the refusal of the school to permit a re-test to her in physics
and chemistry.

CONCLUSION:

The petitioner was able to take the re-test in Physics and Chemistry for the class 11th. The
writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to declare the result of the petitioner. In
case she has passed the re-test, she shall be entitled to be promoted to the next class as per the
policy of the respondents.

8
CASE 3

NAME OF THE CASE: MEX SWITCHGEARS PVT. LTD VS. OMEX CABLE
INDUSTRIES

NAME OF THE COURT: HIGH COURT OF DELHI

BENCH COMPOSITION: GITA MITTAL AND C. HARI SHANKAR

CASE CITATION: MANU/DE/1518/2018

SUBJECT: INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS

FACTS: The plaintiff claimed that it has an exclusive right over the word 'MEX', both by
virtue of trademark registration and the presence of the word 'MEX' in its corporate name. It
has further been claimed by the plaintiff that it has attained an enviable reputation and
goodwill for its trademark 'MEX'

The plaintiff has successfully contested several oppositions in the trademark registry from
time to time on the basis of its prior adoption and use of the trademark 'MEX' including by
way of a suit preferred by the appellant/plaintiff against one Mr. Gopal Krishan using the
trademark 'MAX' Standard' as well as corporate name 'MAX' Standards Switchgears Pvt.
Ltd.' In this case, vide order dated 22nd February, 1992, the plaintiff was granted an ad
interim injunction against the defendant. This injunction was confirmed by way of the
judgment.

CONCLUSION: The defendants, their servants, agents, dealers, distributors and any others
person acting for and on its behalf are restrained from using the mark OMEX or any other
deceptively similar trade mark which may amount to infringement of plaintiffs registered
trade mark as well as passing of their goods as that of the plaintiff and from doing any other
thing which is likely to create confusion and deception that the goods of the defendants have
any connection with the plaintiff. The appeal is allowed.

9
CASE 4

NAME OF THE CASE: AKHIL KUMAR AND ORS. VS. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI &
ORS.

NAME OF THE COURT: HIGH COURT OF DELHI

BENCH COMPOSITION: GITA MITTAL

CASE CITATION: Writ Petition (C) Nos. 5451-55/2000

SUBJECT: CIVIL

FACTS: petitioners have sought a direction to the respondent to offer for admission 25.5% of
the post graduate seats for the reserved category candidates for which the Post Graduate
Medical Entrance Examination was held by the respondent and not out of the total seats
including the seats reserved for All India Quota. As per the scheme of the entrance
examination, 50% of the total seats are reserved for the local/state candidates while 50% of
the seats are available for admission under what is described as the All India Quota. The
petitioners are aggrieved by the failure of the respondent to clearly stipulate as to the manner
in which the reservation for the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribes category is concerned.

ISSUES: Weather the reservations are valid?

REASONING: All India Quota of 50% seats, if 22.5% are reserved for SC/ST students, it
would be difficult for the State to give the entire percentage to reservation out of the 50%
seats left for them to be filled up. It is equally difficult for the DGHS to have the entire 22.5%
reservation out of the 50% of the seats allotted to be admitted in the All India Entrance
Examination. Therefore, it is suggested that the Union of India has decided to provide 22.5%
reservation for SC/ST candidates in All India Quota from the academic year 2007-2008
onwards. The Union of India seeks clarification of the order passed in Buddhi Prakash
Sharma v. Union of India passed on 28.2.2005, to the effect that 50% seats for All India
Quota shall include the reservation. We review that order and make it clear that the 50% of
the seats to be filled up by All-India Entrance Examination shall include the reservation to be
provided for SC/ST students. To that extent the order passed on 28.2.2005 is clarified.

CONCLUSION: All pending petitions are disposed.

10
CASE 5

NAME OF THE CASE: ANAND KUMAR VS. THE MANAGEMENT STATE BANK OF
INDIA

NAME OF THE COURT: HIGH COURT OF DELHI

BENCH COMPOSITION: GITA MITTAL

CASE CITATION: MANU/DE/2997/2005

SUBJECT: CIVIL

FACTS: the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court has been impugned
by the workman whereby the reference was answered against him. The entire challenge by
the petitioner is raised on the plea that he had placed sufficient material on record and had
established that he was appointed by the respondent bank to do miscellaneous jobs including
the work of a waterman with effect from 1st May, 1984 on a last drawn salary of Rs. 325/-
per month. Placing reliance on a document dated 1st September, 1989, it is contended that
this document constituted a letter of appointment which established that the petitioner had
been engaged by the bank. In these circumstances, according to the petitioner/workman, the
action of the respondents in terminating the services of the workman on 27th March, 1990
tantamount to retrenchment as defined under Section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947. The same having been effected without compliance of Section 25F of the enactment
rendered the action of the respondent’s illegal entitling the petitioner to reinstatement with all
consequential benefits.

CONCLUSION: The petitioner has assailed the award only on issues of fact which would be
impermissible. The petitioner failed to discharge the primary burden of proof cast on him. For
all the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in this petition which is hereby dismissed.

REASONING: Person shall be liable to be terminated from his service if he failed to

discharge primary burden of proof which is cast on him.

11
CASE 6

NAME OF THE CASE: NAGENDRA SINGH VS. UOI AND ORS

NAME OF THE COURT: HIGH COURT OF DELHI

BENCH COMPOSITION: GITA MITTAL AND VIPIN SANGHI

CASE CITATION: MANU/DE/4271/2010

SUBJECT: CIVIL

FACTS: The Border Roads Organisation ('BRO' hereafter for brevity) and Border Roads
Development Board (BRDB) were set up by the Government of India on account of several
reasons including economic development of the North Eastern areas, security concerns etc.
An order was passed on 18th April, 1960 whereby the post of Director General, Boarder
Roads was sanctioned, which was declared as equivalent to the post of a Major General in the
Indian Army, to head the BRO. A further policy decision was taken that the BRO should
continue as part of the Directorate General of works of the Army headquarters but would
work under the Border Roads Development Board which was set up by the Government of
India as a self contained authority under the chairmanship of the Prime Minister with the
Defence Minister as the Deputy Chairman and other higher functionaries.

The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner's assailing a notification dated 12th
February, 2007 issued as a corrigendum by the Ministry of Defence of the Government of
India and as an amendment to the equivalent prescription under the notification dated 4th
September, 1987.

CONCLUSION: The contention of the petitioner that by way of the notification dated 12th
February, 2007, superintending engineers have been equated in status or for seniority or any
other purposes to colonels from the army who are deployed with GREF is misplaced and not
correct. The effect of the notification dated 12th February, 2007 is merely that the
superintending engineers are given equal disciplinary powers under the provisions of the
Army Act in terms of the earlier notification. No issue arises for adjudication in the present
and the writ petition is disposed.

12
CASE 7

NAME OF THE CASE: PREM KUMAR PRASAD VS. JAMIA HAMDARD (DU)

NAME OF THE COURT: HIGH COURT OF DELHI

BENCH COMPOSITION: GITA MITTAL

CASE CITATION: MANU/DE/2120/2008

SUBJECT: CIVIL

FACTS:

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner complaining that he had joined the B.B.A.
Course of the Jamia Hamdard University in the year 2004. The petitioner has stated that he
has passed the first and second year examination of the course in the year 2005-2006
respectively. However on account of illness he was unable to take the third year examination
properly and failed the examination.

The grievance made in the writ petition is that as per the rules and regulations applicable, so
far as the supplementary examination for failed students is concerned, the same is being
conducted and scheduled by the respondent/university only alongwith the examinations of the
next academic year. The petitioner's grievance is that the same impacts his valuable rights
inasmuch as one whole year is caused to be wasted.

CONCLUSION:

The petitioner has no right whatsoever to claim a mandamus or direction to issue to the
respondents to hold the supplementary examination for him at a particular date and time. The
respondents are best placed to fix such schedule. The case is dismissed on grounds of no
merit.

REASONING:

The rules and regulations which have been framed by the university were within the
knowledge of the petitioner when he had taken admission to the course. It is trite that no
student has any legal or enforceable right to claim that the supplementary examination or any
other exam be conducted on a particular date or time as per the convenience of the candidate.

13
CASE 8

NAME OF THE CASE: SHILVI NIGAM VS. CENTRAL BOARD OF SECOANDRY

EDUCATION AND ORS.

NAME OF THE COURT: HIGH COURT OF DELHI

BENCH COMPOSITION: GITA MITTAL

CASE CITATION: MANU/DE/2136/2008

SUBJECT: CIVIL

FACTS:

This writ petition the petitioner has sought a direction to the respondent to issue admit card to
appear in examination of class 12th Board Examinations 2008 as a private candidate. The
petitioner has submitted that on account of death of her uncle, she could not deposit the form
with the late fee by the last date which was notified as 29th October, 2007. She submitted the
form on the 10th December, 2007 with the covering letter from the Secretary of the Ministry
of Empowerment, Government of India, New Delhi. It is thus admitted that she has submitted
the form with the late fee. The respondent however has rejected the admission form on the
14th December, 2007 on account of its late submission and the petitioner has been asked to
apply for refund of the examination fee. The petitioner's representations were not acceded to
by the respondent resulting in filing of the present writ petition.

CONCLUSION:

The petitioner should have been vigilant and complied with the regulations and dates notified
by the respondents and could have submitted a form strictly in accordance therewith. No
discretion is conferred on the respondent to condone delay beyond the dates which they have
notified. No merit in this writ petition and application which are hereby dismissed.

REASONING:

Respondent cannot be faulted for rejecting the application form which was deposited way
beyond the notified dates. The petitioner should have been vigilant and complied with the
regulations and dates notified

14
CASE 9

NAME OF THE CASE: NZPH RAILWAY EMPLOYEES COOP. G.H. SOCY. LTD VS.
DELHI VIDYUT BOARD

NAME OF THE COURT: HIGH COURT OF DELHI

BENCH COMPOSITION: GITA MITTAL

CASE CITATION: MANU/DE/0338/2005

SUBJECT: CIVIL

FACTS: The petitioner society had constructed flats at Geeta Colony near Shastri Nagar.
Apart from the petitioner society, there were several other societies in the neighbourhood
including the KAYMES Cooperative Group Housing Society, SANMANYA CGHS Taj
Sartaj CGHS and the Wakf Board which had also raised construction in the neighbourhood.
After construction of flats, these societies had approached the then Delhi Electricity Supply
Undertaking (the predecessor in interest of the erstwhile Delhi Vidyut Board).

The petitioner contends that it had requested for electrification as back as in the year 1988.
The electrification scheme of the petitioner society was duly cleared and a demand of Rs.11,
19,714/- was raised upon the petitioner for the purposes of construction of an electric sub-
station. This amount was deposited as demanded on the 4th September, 1995. It is submitted
that the area earmarked for construction of the electric sub-station was duly handed over and
the sub-station constructed thereon soon thereafter. Despite the huge amount having been
deposited by the petitioner society, no follow up action, either by the Delhi Electric Supply
Undertaking or by its successor in interest i.e. the Delhi Vidyut Board was taken.

The writ petitions seeking appropriate reliefs were filed by the different housing societies on
the respondents for no action taken by them

CONCLUSION: The respondent shall give the credit of the amounts directed to be paid and
paid by the petitioner society during the pendency of the writ petition in respect of the bills
raised. It is held that the petitioner and its members shall not be made liable to pay late
payment surcharge on the billed amount. The petitioner shall be entitled to costs of the
petition which are quantified at Rs.11,000/-

15
CASE 10

NAME OF THE CASE: VEER BHAN VS. THE CHIEF OF THE ARMY STAFF & ORS

NAME OF THE COURT: HIGH COURT OF DELHI

BENCH COMPOSITION: GITA MITTAL AND DR. M.K. SHARMA

CASE CITATION: MANU/DE/1046/2004

SUBJECT: CIVIL/SERVICE

FACTS: The petitioner joined the Indian Army as Sepoy in the Jat Regiment in the year 1980
and claims that he has discharged his duties to the satisfaction of all the superior officers of
the Indian Army. While on active service at Changri west post on 26th June, 1994, it was
alleged that he had dishonestly misappropriated government ration valued at Rs.4,031.24 P.
and had sold it to civilians. Pursuant to these allegations, a summary of evidence was directed
against the petitioner by his Commanding Officer Col. K.K. Bhattacharya which was
recorded on 6th July, 1994. The petitioner was arraigned before the Summary Court Martial
on the 11th July, 1994 and it is alleged that on a plea of guilt by the accused, he was found
guilty of the offence with which he was charged. He was consequently, sentenced to rigorous
imprisonment of four months and dismissal from service on the 11th July, 1994. The writ
petition was filed by the petitioner for quashing of the proceedings, findings and sentence of
summary court marshal.

CONCLUSION: the proceedings of the Summary Court Martial held on 11th July, 2004
against the petitioner were in violation of the provisions of Army Act, 1950 and Army Rules,
1954 and we hereby set aside and quash the same. The petitioner is entitled to all
consequential benefits and is required to be reinstated with all consequential benefits. The
proceedings were held in violation of the rights of the petitioner and specific provisions of
Army Act, 1950 and Army Rules, 1954. The respondents are directed to take all necessary
steps for re-instating the petitioner and processing the matter for consequential benefits and
back wages within a period of six weeks from the date of the judgment.

REASONING: Valuable rights of the accused person were impinged upon and it was
imperative that the proceedings of the Court Martial are made available to him forthwith. The
petitioner was entitled to such review as was available to him not only under the provisions of
Army Act, 1950, also under constitution.

16
CASE 11

NAME OF THE CASE: CHEENA NANDA VS. GOVT. OF N.C.T. OF DELHI & ORS.

NAME OF THE COURT: HIGH COURT OF DELHI

BENCH COMPOSITION: GITA MITTAL

CASE CITATION: MANU/DE/3129/2005

SUBJECT: CIVIL

FACTS: The petitioner after passing her class 12th examination, the petitioner sought
admission to undertake the three year diploma course run by the Department of Training and
Technical Education of the Government of NCT of Delhi in the Art for Drawing Teacher.
The respondents had provided reservation for different categories including SC/ST/OBC and
Physically Handicap category. The petitioner has set up entitlement under the Physically
Handicapped quota. As per this Bulletin of Information, the respondents had prescribed a
common entrance test for admission to the full time diploma course programmes which was
stated to be conducted by the Guru Gobind Indraprastha University.

The petitioner appeared in the entrance examination as a general category but could not
qualify the same. The writ petition was filed by the petitioner because he was not admitted to
the course for the three year Diploma in Art for Drawing Teacher was cancelled. The
petitioner was admitted to the course as back as in August, 2003. No objection of any kind
was taken and she was permitted to take the first year examination. Even for the second year,
fees was also accepted from her when the course for the second year was underway, the order
dated 29th September, 2004 was passed without noticing any of the submissions made by the
Principal of respondent.

CONCLUSION: order dated 29th September, 2004 was set aside. The respondents shall
declare the result of the petitioner for the first year of the Diploma Course in Art for Drawing
Teachers and shall permit her to continue the course for its full term and length. The
petitioner shall be permitted to undertake the theory examinations of the course for the
second year as well.

REASONING: If Student had not been considered as a handicapped person, then her
admission has to be considered against general seats which are admittedly available

17
CASE 12

NAME OF THE CASE: SARIKA SINGH VS. C.B.S.E.

NAME OF THE COURT: HIGH COURT OF DELHI

BENCH COMPOSITION: GITA MITTAL

CASE CITATION: MANU/DE/2145/2008

SUBJECT: CIVIL

FACTS: Writ petition has been filed by the petitioner complaining that she had passed her
Class X examination from the Glenhill School Manduadih, Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh. She
thereafter joined Dr. Amrit Lal Ishrat Memorial Sunbeam School, Rohania, Varanasi, Uttar
Pradesh, impleaded as respondent No. 2 herein, which is stated to be affiliated to the Central
Board of Secondary Education, respondent No. 1 herein, for the purpose of improvement of
class X result.

The petitioner had regularly attended classes and submitted her examination form in time for
appearing in the Board examination for Class XII which is commencing from 1st March,
2008. According to the petitioner, she submitted the examination form between August, 2007
to October, 2007. A claim is made that the petitioner deposited the prescribed examination
fee for the CBSE as well. However, when queries were made for issuance of an admit card,
the respondent No. 2 did not answer the queries satisfactorily.

CONCLUSION: The petitioner would not have reason to claim damages for the default by
the respondent No. 2 and the loss of one academic year on account of non-forwarding of her
application by it. However, so far as this Court is concerned, no relief can be granted to the
petitioner in the writ petition.

REASONING:

No examination form or examination fee in respect of the petitioner has been received by the
C.B.S.E. who is respondent 1. But they are deposited with the school authorities and due to
default on their part they are not sent to the C.B.S.E. Board. So no order or direction can be
issued to the respondent 1 to issue admit card and permit to write exams

18
CASE 13

NAME OF THE CASE: BASHIRAM VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

NAME OF THE COURT: HIGH COURT OF DELHI

BENCH COMPOSITION: GITA MITTAL AND M.K. SHARMA

CASE CITATION: MANU/DE/1048/2004

SUBJECT: CIVIL

FACTS: writ petition was filed by the mother of a deceased soldier late Ex- Rfn. Kadar khan
seeking quashing of orders dated 28th March, 2002 and 14th March, 2002 passed by the
Army Group Insurance Scheme informing her that the insurance benefits available to her son,
the deceased soldier, would be released in favour of his widow in the event that the petitioner
was unable to produce any orders in her favour of stay from a court of law.

The petitioner claims that as she was the mother of the deceased and that the death of late Ex-
Rfn. Kadar Khan had taken place in suspicious circumstances, Therefore, the widow was not
entitled to the family pension or the army group insurance and that the petitioner was entitled
to the same. It is also contended that the parents of the deceased were dependent on him and
for this reason as well they were entitled to grant and disbursement of the terminal benefits in
their favour.

CONCLUSION: The deceased admittedly did not think it fit to make a nomination of his
army group insurance benefits in favour of his mother. The reliance placed on this circular
dated 4th November, 1999, therefore, is of no benefit or avail. There are no merits found in
the case of the petitioner so the writ petition was dismissed.

REASONING:

The circular was merely in the nature of piece of advice to officers and other senior officers
to disseminate this information among the troops and advise concerned army personnel about
the importance of filling up their nomination form correctly. The intention and purpose of
this circular was to publicise such information so as to ameliorate the problems of aged
parents and to avoid litigation within the family

19
CASE 14

NAME OF THE CASE: NAVPREET SINGH SANDHU VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS

NAME OF THE COURT: HIGH COURT OF DELHI

BENCH COMPOSITION: GITA MITTAL AND INDERMEET KAUR

CASE CITATION: MANU/DE/1463/2010

SUBJECT: CIVIL

FACTS:

The respondents had issued an advertisement inviting applications for the Indian Army for
the 111th Technical Graduate Course (July 2010) and the 35th Short Service Commission
(Technical) Men in the weekly employment news for the period 7 13th November, 2009.
Being eligible for the same, the petitioner had submitted his application on 12th November,
2009 for the 111th Technical Graduate Course along with attested photocopies of the
required documents. Later the respondents had uploaded the list of eligible candidates for the
said course on their website; the petitioner was, however, not included in this list

The petitioner along with his father, he had visited the respondents seeking information as
well the reason for non inclusion of his name. Despite being told that the petitioner would be
informed about the reasons thereof, no response at all was received.

CONCLUSION:

The respondents shall forthwith issue a communication to the petitioner informing him of the
date and venue of the interview for consideration selection for 111th Technical Graduate
Course (July 2010). The respondents shall ensure that the petitioner is given a reasonable
time to reach the place at which his interview would be held. the writ petition is allowed.

20
CASE 15

NAME OF THE CASE: ESPN SOFTWARE INDIA PRIVATE LTD. VS. TUDU
ENTERPRISE AND ORS.

NAME OF THE COURT: HIGH COURT OF DELHI

BENCH COMPOSITION: GITA MITTAL

CITATION: MANU/DE/1061/2011

SUBJECT: INTELLECTUALPROPERTY RIGHTS

FACTS: The case of the Plaintiff is that it has the exclusive rights for India and other
territories for telecast of the ICC Cricket World Cup 2011, cricket matches being played in
India, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh. The Plaintiff obtained these exclusive rights from the
International Cricket Council (ICC). He is claiming to be the sole and exclusive distributor of
three pay channels, namely, ESPN, STAR Sports and STAR cricket Channels in India having
obtained the exclusive right from ESPN STAR Sports the Defendant No. 174 herein, who in
turn obtained the same from ESPN (Mauritius) Limited . EML has obtained from ICC
Development Limited the exclusive right to televise in India till the year 2015 all ICC events
including the said ICC Cricket World Cup 2011, being fifty over’s International cricket
matches, being played in India, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh from February 19, 2011 to April 2,
2011. The Plaintiff also has the exclusive right to televise in India various other international
live sporting events including the French Open, Wimbledon, Confederation Cup, FI, Moto
GP, various Golfing events, the Olympics events. The actions of the Defendants in
distributing the Plaintiff's signals to other cable operators and cable homes without any
license in this regard from the Plaintiff are unlawful and violative of the Plaintiff's broadcast
reproduction right.

CONCLUSION: The defendants/their agents, representatives, franchisees, sub-operators,

head ends and/or anyone claiming under them are hereby restrained from distributing,
telecasting and broadcasting/rebroadcasting or in any other manner communicating to the
viewing public/subscribers either by means of wireless diffusion or by wire or in any other
manner the ICC Cricket World Cup, 2011 being

REASONING: Person shall not be entitled to subscription of channels without having license
of it

21
CASE 16

NAME OF THE CASE: SANTOSH KUMAR SINGH VS. SRI GURU GOBIND SINGH
COLLEGE OF COMMERCE & ORS.

NAME OF THE COURT: HIGH COURT OF DELHI

BENCH COMPOSITION: GITA MITTAL

CASE CITATION: MANU/DE/2119/2008

SUBJECT: CIVIL

FACTS: The petitioner took the first semester examination in December, 2004. He, however,
failed to obtain the pass percentage marks in paper No. IV while he cleared the examination
conducted in the other papers. The petitioner has claimed that he attended all classes of the
two semesters, took the mid-term examination in March, 2005 and was permitted 40 days
internship as well. It is only when the petitioner submitted his examination form that the
respondent Controller of Examinations in May, 2005 stated that the petitioner had failed in
one paper and that in the rules it was not clear as to whether he is entitled to appear in the
second semester examination and consequently his form was not accepted.

Aggrieved by the action of the respondent in not permitting him to undertake the second
semester examination of the course of Diploma in Business Journalism & Corporate
Communication.

ISSUE: Whether the petitioner is eligible for the examinations of second semester when
failed in a subject of semester one?

CONCLUSION: The judge followed the ordinance of the college itself and it was mentioned
there that “A prohibition which was not contained nor stipulated therein and thus not notified
to the student, could not be read into the conditions of the course mid-session to his/her
prejudice.” The disqualification and the ineligibility which has been read into the scheme of
the course by the respondents, so far as the petitioner was concerned, is wholly arbitrary,
misconceived and untenable and cannot be sustained. The petitioner thus was wrongly
prevented from taking the examination.

The petitioner is allowed to take the exams of second semester and one exam in which he
failed. This writ petition is allowed.

22
CASE 17

NAME OF THE CASE: INTEL CORPORATION VS. A. SAILESH

NAME OF THE COURT: HIGH COURT OF DELHI

BENCH COMPOSITION: GITA MITTAL, C.J.

CASE CITATION: MANU/DE/9853/2007

SUBJECT: INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS

FACTS: M/S Intel Corporation claims to be the registered owners of the mark ‘Intel’. They
further claim that it is a coined word and attaches high degree of inherent distinctiveness.
They also contended that the word ‘Intel’ is the corporate name and trademark and was first
introduced in U S and thereafter extended to more than 100 countries including India. The
mark and the name have encompassed within itself every facet of computer industry
including software and internet. Owing to much publicity and promotion, Intel has achieved
significant goodwill and reputation. The grievance of the Intel Corporation is that A. Sailesh/
Defendant who is the sole proprietor of a commercial enterprise, has adopted the name M/S
Intel Info Services for the business of providing internet facility as well as photocopying and
typewriting facilities. It is further alleged that the use of the name ‘Intel’ is without any
authorization or license on the part of the Intel Corporation. It was submitted that Intel
Corporation had made several attempts to settle the matter amicably but A Sailesh had
refused to recognize the Intellectual property rights of Intel Corporation. Several warning in
the form of letters and telephonic calls were forwarded but, A Sailesh took little notice
of them. Hence the suit was instituted.

REASONING: Rights of person shall be infringed if it is found that trademarks are

deceptively similar.

CONCLUSION: The defendant should deliver all printed matter having the name/mark
INTEL in its power and possession, including name boards, stationery, invoices, business
cards etc. to the plaintiff through its authorized representative who shall cause the same to be
destroyed. The plaintiff shall be entitled to the costs of present proceedings that is Rs.
50,000/-.

23
CASE 18

NAME OF THE CASE: BHAWANI SINGH RATHORE VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

NAME OF THE COURT: HIGH COURT OF DELHI

BENCH COMPOSITION: GITA MITTAL AND C. HARI SHANKAR

CASE CITATION: MANU/DE/9355/2017

SUBJECT: CIVIL

FACTS:

Petitioner appearing in person is a committed sports person, this writ petition relating to the
jurisdiction of the respondents to bind themselves to the stipulations made by the World Anti-
Doping Agency to compel Indian Sports Persons to undergo the tests prescribed by it. The
petitioner also challenged the constitution of the Court of Arbitration for Sport, Geneva,
Switzerland and its jurisdiction to bind Indian Sports Personnel by its decision. The petitioner
filed a writ petition without making any representation.

ISSUES:

Filing of writ petition without making any representation is valid or not?

REASONING:

this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the writ petitioner to serve a copy of the
writ petition on the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, who are not represented before us, within one
week from today.

CONCLUSION:

The respondents herein are directed to consider the issues raised in the writ petition and take
a view thereon within a period of eight weeks thereafter. The view which is taken by the
respondents shall be communicated to the petitioner. Petition dismissed.

24
CASE 19

NAME OF THE CASE: STATE OF J&K AND ORS. VS. HAMID AHMAD WANI & ORS.

NAME OF THE COURT: HIGH COURT OF DELHI

BENCH COMPOSITION: GITA MITTAL AND ALOK ARADHE

CASE CITATION: LPASW No. 109/2018

SUBJECT: CIVIL/SERVICE

FACTS:

The respondent was appointed as an Assistant Town Planner in Town Planning Organization,
Kashmir on 12.03.1993. Thereafter, he was promoted as Town Planner on officiating basis
vide order dated 17.08.2001. The respondent was promoted to the post of Senior Town
Planner and was further promoted vide order dated 23.05.2014 on officiating basis as Chief
Town Planner, Jammu Development Authority. The respondent was compulsorily retired
from service w.e.f. 01.06.2015 in purported exercise of powers under Article 226 (2) of
Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services Regulations vide order dated 30.06.2015 The aforesaid
order was passed on the ground that first information report namely FIR No. 27/2008 for
offences under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5 (2) of Jammu and Kashmir Prevention of
Corruption Act, Samvat, 2006 and Section 120-B, 109 of the RPC was registered against the
respondent by Vigilance Organization, Jammu.

ISSUES:

Is the compulsory retirement is valid?

REASONING:

Appellants have not taken into account the service record of the respondent and merely on the
basis of registration of the first information report, have come to the conclusion that
continuance of the respondent in service is not desirable in public interest.

CONCLUSION:

Appeal dismissed.

25
CASE 20

NAME OF THE CASE: STATE OF J& K AND ORS. VS. ABDUL GANI MIR

NAME OF THE COURT: HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR

BENCH COMPOSITION: GITA MITTAL AND ALOK ARADHE

CASE CITATION: LPASW No. 132/2018 and IA No. 01/2018

SUBJECT: CIVIL/SERVICE

FACTS: Facts giving rise to the filing of this appeal briefly stated are that a Committee was
constituted to consider the cases of the officers/officials for compulsory retirement in public
interest under Article 226(2) of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Service Regulations. The
matter of the respondent was placed for consideration before the Committee. The Committee
on perusal of the record returned the finding that the 'Annual Performance Reports' (APRs) of
the respondent were either not available or incomplete. The Committee further held that First
Information Report being FIR No. 19/2012 was registered against the respondent in Police
Station, Vigilance Organization Kashmir, for the commission of offences punishable under
Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Jammu and Kashmir Prevention of Corruption
Act, Samvat 2006 and Section 161 of the RPC. The Committee on the basis of the First
Information Report came to the conclusion that the respondent does not enjoy good
reputation in the public and therefore, should be compulsorily retired from service in public
interest under Article 226(2) of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Service Regulations. On the
basis of recommendation made by the Committee, an order dated 21.11.2016 was issued by
the appellants, by which the respondent was retired from service in public interest with effect
from 22.11.2016.

ISSUES: Order passed Valid or not?

REASONING: it is evident that the order of compulsory retirement of the respondent in

public interest has been passed by the appellants merely on the ground of registration of First
Information Reports against him. It is also noteworthy that the appellants have not taken into
account the service record of the respondent while passing the order of compulsory
retirement of the respondent in public interest

CONCLUSION: Appeal dismissed.

26
CASE 21

NAME OF THE CASE: AYUSH TIWARI VS. FACULTY OF LAW AND ORS.

NAME OF THE COURT: HIGH COURT OF DELHI

BENCH COMPOSITION: GITA MITTAL AND C. HARI SHANKAR

CASE CITATION: W.P.(C) 3510/2018

SUBJECT: CIVIL/EDUCATION

FACTS:

This writ petition seeks a direction to the University of Delhi, more specifically the Faculty of
Law, to conduct the LLB Entrance Examination in Hindi in addition to English

ISSUES:

Weather the exam to be conducted in hindi or not?

REASONING: neither in the Constitution of India nor in any other law to selection for Civil
Services on the basis inter alia of a test of English Language Comprehension. It was further
observed that Article 343 itself permitted continuation of use of English language for 15
years and thereafter also by law made by Parliament and the Parliament by promulgating The
Official Languages Act, 1963 has, in addition to Hindi provided for continuation of the use of
English language as well. It was yet further held that the competitive test of English
Language Comprehension Skills was necessary for selection of Civil Servants in the modern
scenario.

It is further explained that while the semester examinations entails answering essay type
questions, the entrance examination is objective type with the candidates being required to
merely make a choice from the multiple answers given. It is stated that if the candidates
cannot even read or understand English language, they would not be able to reap benefit of
the teaching in English language or the case material and the other prescribed reading
material which is invariably in English language.

CONCLUSION:

Petition was dismissed.

27
CASE 22

NAME OF THE CASE: RAMA KANT SHUKLA VS. UOI AND ORS

NAME OF THE COURT: HIGH COURT OF DELHI

BENCH COMPOSITION: GITA MITTAL AND DEEPA SHARMA

CASE CITATION: NO.411/2014 IN W.P.(C) 658/2005

SUBJECT: CIVIL/SERVICE

FACTS: The petitioner in the instant case was enrolled as a Constable in the Border Security
Force on the 10th of July 1968. While serving at the Gun area of Kanzalwan at Bhuj with
regard to an incident on the 21st of June 1995, a chargesheet dated 25th July, 1995 was
issued by the officer commanding and the petitioner was subjected to trial by Summary
Security Force Code held on the 23rd of February 1996. On the same date, the petitioner was
convicted and sentenced to dismissal from service. By an order dated 6th of February 2014.

ISSUES: Weather to reconsider dismissal?

REASONING: It is urged that the dismissal of the petitioner is having a devastating effect on
his family and he is the sole breadwinner who supports a family of wife and four children
who includes two daughters, one aged 25 years and the other one 20 years while the other
two children are still school going. Mr. Ankur Chibber, learned amicus curiae appearing on
behalf of the petitioner submits that the aged parents of the petitioner are also dependent upon
him. The submission is that as a result of the sentence which was imposed upon him, the
entire family is rendered completely without any kind of support and in extreme penury. It is
submitted that these facts and circumstances justify the relief to the petitioner of
compassionate allowance under Rule 41 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972.
There appears to be merit in this contention.

CONCLUSION: This review petition is consequently disposed of in the above terms with
liberty to the petitioner to submit a proper representation for grant of compassionate
allowance under Rule 41 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. The
representation as and when made shall be considered sympathetically and expeditiously by
the respondents.

28
CASE 23

NAME OF THE CASE: CADBURY INDIA LIMITED AND ORS. VS. NEERAJ FOOD
PRODUCTS

NAME OF THE COURT: HIGH COURT OF DELHI

BENCH COMPOSITION: GITA MITTAL

CASE CITATION: MANU/DE/1596/2007

SUBJECT: INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS/CIVIL

FACTS: Application has been filed by the plaintiffs under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the
Code of Civil Procedure praying for grant of an interlocutory injunction against the defendant
restraining it from using the trademark ‘JAMES’ or ‘JAMES BOND’ or any other trademark
deceptively or confusingly similar to the plaintiff’s registered trademark ‘Gems’ or using the
pillow packs attached as Annexure A to the plaint. The plaintiff has also prayed that a further
injunction against the defendant restraining him from passing off its goods of the plaintiff, by
reproducing in any material form, the copyright in the artistic work of the pillow packs
annexed as Annexure A to the plaint.

CONCLUSION: The defendants, its proprietors, partners, directors, servants, agents

distributors, franchisees, representatives and assigns are hereby restrained from using the
trademark JAMES and/or JAMES BOND and/or any other trademark deceptively or
confusingly similar to the plaintiff’s registered trademark GEMS or in any other manner
infringing the registered trademark GEMS of the plaintiffs and using the pillow-packs
attached as Annexure B to the plaint or any other packaging whatsoever which is deceptively
or confusingly similar to the pillow packs of the plaintiffs attached as Annexure A to the
plaint. The defendants, its proprietors, partners, directors, servants, agents, distributors,
franchisees, representatives and assigns are also restrained from passing off their goods of the
plaintiff

REASONING: Section 29 of the Trade Mark Act, 1999 mandate that in the cases of
similarity of name and identity of product the plaintiff would be entitled to an injunction.

Even in case of disclaimer, plaintiff cannot be precluded from maintaining a passing off
action in respect of the trade mark.

29
 OUTCOMES OF THE PROJECT:

The researcher has acquired knowledge as to how each case is differently interpreted by the
Chief Justice Gita Mittal. By analysing 23 cases, the researcher is finally of an opinion that
there isn’t a method followed by the judges while interpreting cases of a particular subject
matter. Each case is interpreted by considering its facts and circumstances and decided
accordingly.

30