Best printers for Home

Best Mixer Grinder

Best wired Earphones

Best 43 Inch TV in India

Best Wi Fi Routers

Best Home Theatre in India

Smart Watch under 5000

Best Laptops for Education

Best Laptop for Students

<keyword id="19895875" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Delhi-High-Court" source="keywords" meta.keywordsubtype="org" meta.entityname="Delhi High Court" meta.hostid="261" meta.entityid="Delhi High Court">Delhi High Court</keyword> on Thursday, has appointed a sole <keyword id="20233811" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="arbitrator" source="keywords">arbitrator</keyword> to address the conflicts between <keyword id="19956322" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="BharatPe" source="keywords" meta.keywordsubtype="org" meta.entityname="BharatPe" meta.hostid="261" meta.entityid="BharatPe">BharatPe</keyword> and its former MD <keyword id="20115473" type="General" weightage="100" keywordseo="Ashneer-Grover" source="keywords">Ashneer Grover</keyword>. The disputes center around allegations that Grover breached confidentiality terms outlined in his <keyword id="20424040" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="employment-agreement" source="keywords">employment agreement</keyword> with the fintech firm. Justice C. Hari Shankar of the Delhi High Court has ordered the appointment of a sole arbitrator to resolve disputes between Ashneer Grover and BharatPe. BharatPe's plea under a relevant section of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act sought to resolve issues stemming from Grover's alleged breach of confidentiality by disclosing sensitive company information on social media. BharatPe proposed former <keyword id="19895345" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Supreme-Court" source="keywords" meta.keywordsubtype="org" meta.entityname="Supreme Court" meta.hostid="261" meta.entityid="Supreme Court">Supreme Court</keyword> Justice Hemant Gupta as the arbitrator, but Grover suggested Justice (Retired) J.R. Midha instead. Grover's advocate, Giriraj Subramanium, did not oppose arbitration, but proposed that the matter be handled by the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC), given its ongoing involvement with related disputes over the shareholders' agreement. BharatPe's advocate, Anuj Berry, contested this, asserting that the employment agreement specifies arbitration under the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC), which the Court upheld. Additionally, BharatPe had previously sought a restraining order to prevent Grover from publicly disclosing company details. The Delhi High Court had previously imposed a penalty of Rs. 2 lakh on Ashneer Grover for breaching a court order by posting derogatory content about BharatPe on social media. Justice Rekha Palli, expressing disapproval of Grover's repeated violations, mandated that he pay the costs to the Delhi High Court Clerk Association. Grover issued an unconditional apology, which the court accepted, contingent upon the payment of the imposed costs.

Delhi HC appoints arbitrator to address conflict between Ashneer Grover and BharatPe

The <keyword id="19895345" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Supreme-Court" source="keywords">Supreme Court</keyword> on Monday deferred by six weeks hearing on a plea of Chief Minister <keyword id="19901384" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Arvind-Kejriwal" source="keywords">Arvind Kejriwal</keyword> challenging a <keyword id="19895875" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Delhi-High-Court" source="keywords">Delhi High Court</keyword> order upholding the summons issued to him in a criminal <keyword id="19917023" type="General" weightage="100" keywordseo="defamation-case" source="keywords">defamation case</keyword> for retweeting an allegedly defamatory video circulated by YouTuber <keyword id="21917603" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Dhruv-Rathee" source="keywords">Dhruv Rathee</keyword> in 2018. A bench of justices Sanjiv Khanna, Sanjay Kumar and R Mahadevan posted the matter for hearing after six weeks after senior <keyword id="22757218" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="advocate-Abhishek-Singhvi" source="Orion">advocate Abhishek Singhvi</keyword>, appearing for <keyword id="19895701" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="kejriwal" source="keywords">Kejriwal</keyword>, sought some more time to work out a settlement. "We express regret but some more time may be given (for settlement). Currently, too many things are going on in this man's life," Singhvi submitted. Advocate Raghav Awasthi, appearing for the complainant, submitted that time may be given (to Kejriwal) but it should not be unlimited and some negotiations have to take place. Singhvi submitted that although he (Kejriwal) expresses regret for the tweet but it cannot be on his (complainant's) terms. The bench posted the matter for hearing after six weeks to enable the parties reach a settlement. Earlier, Kejriwal has admitted that he "committed a mistake" by retweeting the alleged defamatory video. On March 11, the top court asked Kejriwal whether he wanted to give an apology to the complainant in the matter. Kejriwal had on February 26 told the apex court that he made a mistake by retweeting the allegedly defamatory video related to the <keyword id="20738764" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="BJP-IT-Cell" source="keywords" meta.keywordsubtype="org" meta.entityname="BJP IT Cell" meta.hostid="153" meta.entityid="BJP IT Cell">BJP IT Cell</keyword>. The counsel appearing for complainant Vikas Sankrityayan had told the top court that Kejriwal may issue an apology on social media platforms like microblogging platform 'X' or Instagram. On February 26, the apex court, without issuing notice on Kejriwal's plea challenging the high court order, had asked the complainant whether he wanted to close the matter in view of the petitioner accepting it was a mistake. The top court had asked the trial court not to take up the defamation case involving Kejriwal till further orders. In its February 5 verdict, the high court said that reposting alleged libellous content would attract the defamation law. It said a sense of responsibility has to be attached while retweeting content about which one does not have knowledge and added that retweeting defamatory content must invite penal, civil as well as tort action if the person retweeting it does not attach a disclaimer. The high court, while refusing to quash the trial court's 2019 order summoning Kejriwal, had said when a public figure tweets a defamatory post, the ramifications extend far beyond a mere whisper in someone's ears. It had said if the act of retweeting or reposting is allowed to be misused as it is still considered to be a vacant grey area of law, it will encourage people with ill intentions to misuse it and conveniently take a plea that they had merely retweeted a content. The chief minister had said in the high court that the trial court failed to appreciate that his tweet was not intended or likely to harm the complainant. Sankrityayan claimed the YouTube video titled 'BJP IT Cell Part II' was circulated by Rathee, who lives in Germany, "wherein a number of false and defamatory allegations were made".

Defamation case: Supreme Court defers hearing on Arvind Kejriwal's plea to enable settlement by six weeks

<keyword id="19956322" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="BharatPe" source="keywords" meta.keywordsubtype="org" meta.entityname="BharatPe" meta.hostid="83" meta.entityid="BharatPe">BharatPe</keyword> Group and <keyword id="19993869" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="PhonePe" source="keywords" meta.keywordsubtype="org" meta.entityname="PhonePe" meta.hostid="83" meta.entityid="PhonePe">PhonePe</keyword> Group have amicably settled all long-standing legal disputes pertaining to the use of the trademark with the suffix 'Pe', a joint statement read. Both companies had been involved in long-drawn legal disputes across multiple courts, over the past five years. "The settlement will put an end to all open judicial proceedings," the joint statement dated May 26 read. As a next step, they have already taken steps to withdraw all oppositions against each other in the trademark registry which will help them to proceed with the registration of their respective marks. Further, both organizations will undertake other necessary steps to comply with the obligations under the settlement agreement in respect of all cases before the <keyword id="19895875" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Delhi-High-Court" source="keywords">Delhi High Court</keyword> and <keyword id="19905533" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Bombay-High-Court" source="keywords">Bombay High Court</keyword>, the statement said. <keyword id="19956324" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="rajnish-kumar" source="keywords">Rajnish Kumar</keyword>, Chairman of the Board, of BharatPe, said, "This is a positive development for the industry. I appreciate the maturity and professionalism shown by the Management of both sides, working closely to resolve all outstanding legal issues and moving ahead to focus their energy and resources in building robust digital payment ecosystems.'' Sameer Nigam, Founder and CEO of PhonePe, said, ''I am glad that we have reached an amicable resolution in this matter. This outcome will benefit both companies to move forward and focus our collective energy on growing the Indian fintech industry as a whole. I would like to thank Mr Rajnish Kumar and his team for working with us to get to this positive outcome." BharatPe, the brand name of Resilient Innovations Pvt Ltd, was founded in 2018. Currently with a registered network of over 1.3 crore merchants across 450+ cities, the company is one of the leading players in UPI offline transactions, processing 370 million+ UPI transactions per month. PhonePe Group is also India's leading fintech company. Its flagship product, the PhonePe digital payments app, was launched in August 2016. In seven years, the company has scaled rapidly to become India's leading consumer payments app with 535+ million registered users and a digital payments acceptance network of 39+ million merchants. SEE ALSO:<a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/tech/mobile/webstories/poco-f6-vs-realme-gt-6t-which-mid-range-smartphone-should-you-buy/slidelist/110388110.cms" target="_blank"></a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/tech/mobile/webstories/poco-f6-vs-realme-gt-6t-which-mid-range-smartphone-should-you-buy/slidelist/110388110.cms" target="_blank">Poco F6 vs Realme GT 6T – which mid-range smartphone should you buy?</a><a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/tech/mobile/webstories/realme-gt-6t-vs-motorola-edge-50-pro-price-specs-and-features-compared/slidelist/110366047.cms" target="_blank"></a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/tech/mobile/webstories/realme-gt-6t-vs-motorola-edge-50-pro-price-specs-and-features-compared/slidelist/110366047.cms" target="_blank">Realme GT 6T vs Motorola Edge 50 Pro – price, specs and features compared</a><a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/tech/news/indias-wearable-shipments-rise-by-2-1-in-q1-2024-average-price-declines/articleshow/110354913.cms" target="_blank"></a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/tech/news/indias-wearable-shipments-rise-by-2-1-in-q1-2024-average-price-declines/articleshow/110354913.cms" target="_blank">India’s wearable shipments rise by 2.1% in Q1 2024, average price declines</a>

BharatPe and PhonePe amicably settle all trademark disputes over 'Pe' suffix

New Delhi [India], May 14 (ANI): Actor <keyword id="19956789" type="General" weightage="100" keywordseo="Jackie-Shroff" source="keywords">Jackie Shroff</keyword> has approached the <keyword id="19895875" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Delhi-High-Court" source="keywords">Delhi High Court</keyword> to seek protection of his personality and <keyword id="21653032" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="publicity-rights" source="keywords">publicity rights</keyword>. The suit has been filed against various entities using his name, photographs, voice and word "<keyword id="19960424" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Bhidu" source="keywords">Bhidu</keyword>" without his consent. Through this suit, actor Jackie Shroff seeks direction to protect the Plaintiff's name, voice, image, likeness, and all other elements of the Plaintiff's persona which are distinctive and the unauthorized use by third parties is likely to create confusion and deception amongst the public. The bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula on Tuesday issued a summons on the actor's suit and said it will consider the case tomorrow on the interim injunction application. The actor seeks a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from infringing the Plaintiff's personality rights and publicity rights by the use of the Plaintiff's name 'Jackie Shroff", "Jackie', '<keyword id="21052256" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="jaggu-dada" source="keywords">Jaggu Dada</keyword>', 'Bhidu' voice, image and any other attribute which is exclusively identifiable with him for any commercial or personal gain. The plea asks the court to pass a decree of permanent injunction restraining Defendant Bhidu Shawarma restaurant and its associates, servants, agents, affiliates, holding companies, and representatives, from infringing the Plaintiff's registered trademark by using the same as part of its trade name 'Bhidu Shawarma &amp; Restaurant' or any other trade name/trade mark which is deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's registered trademark numbers. The suit also pertains to the violation of the Plaintiff's moral rights in his performances conferred upon him by virtue of section 38B of the <keyword id="21653033" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="copyright-act" source="keywords">Copyright Act</keyword>, 1957. The Plaintiff, as an actor has acted in many cinematographic films and thus enjoys moral rights in his performances in such films and is entitled to restrain any third party from distorting, mutilating or making other modifications to his performance that are prejudicial to his reputation. In the context of the claims in the present proceedings, the Defendants are extracting clips of movies or other cinematographic works which contain performances of the Plaintiff, for the purpose of creation, communication of graphic/ interchange formats (GIFs), etc. The suit states that Plaintiff has not been informed prior to the creation and dissemination of such GIFs, nor has his consent been sought or secured. The Defendants, by reproducing clips containing the Plaintiff's performance, and that too in a manner which brings disrepute to the Plaintiff and makes him the subject of unsavoury humour, are violating his moral rights in his performances. The misappropriation of any attribute of the Plaintiff's persona without his express permission for a commercial purpose is liable to be restrained not only on the basis of the traditional conception of publicity rights namely the exclusive right to commercially exploit one's persona but also on the basis of the tort of dilution, more particularly tarnishment. Recently, the Delhi High Court also restrained the unauthorised use of actor Anil Kapoor's personality or name for commercial purposes. In the year 2022, Amitabh Bachchan had also moved the Delhi HC against the illegal use of his voice and image. (ANI)

You Searched For "Delhi High Court" and got 4 results

Delhi HC appoints arbitrator to address conflict between Ashneer Grover and BharatPe

ANI

Defamation case: Supreme Court defers hearing on Arvind Kejriwal's plea to enable settlement by six weeks

PTI

BharatPe and PhonePe amicably settle all trademark disputes over 'Pe' suffix

ANI

Jackie Shroff moves Delhi HC, files suit against entities using his name, voice and word "Bhidu" without consent

ANI

Popular Keywords

Buying Guides