Citations 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 401 to 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 800Whether Non-Filing Of 'Statement Of Truth' Along With A Petition U/S 34 Of A&C Act Makes The Filing Non-Est? Delhi High Court Refers Question To Larger Bench For Clarification In View Of Conflicting ViewsCase Title: BBNL v. Sterlite Technologies LtdCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 401The Single Bench of Justice Prateek Jalan has...
Citations 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 401 to 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 800
Case Title: BBNL v. Sterlite Technologies Ltd
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 401
The Single Bench of Justice Prateek Jalan has referred the question 'Whether non-filing of statement of truth with a Challenge Petition would make the filing non-est' to a larger bench in view of conflicting views taken by two Division Benches.
Delhi High Court Asks Its Judges To Prioritize Criminal Cases, Appeals Against MPs, MLAs
Case Title : COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v UNION OF INDIA
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 402
The Delhi High Court has asked its judges to prioritise the criminal cases, appeals or revisions pending against MPs and MLAs.
“…we direct the Registry of this Court to circulate this order to brother and sister Judges assigned with such cases so that priority is given to all criminal cases/appeals/revisions pending before them against the members of Parliament and Legislative Assemblies, as it is essential for expeditious and effective disposal of such cases,” a division bench headed by Acting Chief Justice Manmohan said.
Delhi High Court Dismisses PIL To Ban Cross Gender Massages In Spas
Title: SH. ANUJ MALHOTRA v. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 403
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation seeking a direction on the Delhi Government to ban cross-gender massages in spas or massage centres in the national capital.
A division bench comprising of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Singh Arora said that a single judge is already seized of the controversy and thus the PIL cannot be entertained.
Title: VISHNU GUPTA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 404
The Delhi High Court has refused to entertain a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking removal of Arvind Kejriwal, who has been arrested by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in the liquor policy case, from the post of Chief Minister of Delhi.
“At times, personal interest has to be subordinate to national interest. But that is his (Kejriwal's) personal opinion. If he does not want to do that it's upto him. We are a court of law…Do you have any precedent that president's rule or governor's rule has been imposed by the court?” a division bench headed by Acting Chief Justice Manmohan remarked.
Case Name: Parveen Kumar vs Export Inspection Council & Ors
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 405
A single judge bench of the Delhi High Court comprising of Justice Tushar Rao Gedela while deciding a Civil Writ Petition in the case of Parveen Kumar vs Export Inspection Council & Ors has held that a retired officer appointed as Inquiry Officer does not fulfil the criteria of “public servant” under Rule 11(2) of the Export Inspection Employees (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1978 (EIA Rules).
Title: LAVA INTERNATIONAL LIMITED v. TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON and other connected matter
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 406
The Delhi High Court has awarded Rs. 244 crores damages to Ericsson in a suit filed by it against Lava International Limited over infringement of Standard Essential Patents (SEPs).
Justice Amit Bansal acknowledged the transformative impact of the evolution of mobile telecommunications in India, which has opened up access to information and digital services, leading to a more connected and digitally empowered society.
Case Title: PCIT Versus Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 407
The Delhi High Court has quashed the initiation of assessment proceedings under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, which was falling beyond the maximum 10-year block period.
Title: X v. Y
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 408
The Delhi High Court has said that the wife leaving the matrimonial home from time to time without any fault of the husband is an act of mental cruelty.
A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna granted divorce to a husband on the ground of cruelty and desertion by the wife under Section 13 (1) (i- a) and 13 (1) (i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Title: Balbir Chand v Jawahar Lal Nehru University
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 409
In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court has overturned Jawaharlal Nehru University's (JNU) expulsion of a student dating back to 2011, highlighting serious procedural irregularities and a lack of adherence to principles of natural justice.
Justice C Hari Shankar, presiding over the case, criticized JNU for its "predetermined intent" against the student and emphasized the importance of upholding fairness in disciplinary proceedings. The court directed the university to allow the student to complete his Master of Computer Application (MCA) course if he so desires.
Title: ASHWINI KUMAR UPADHYAY v. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 410
The Delhi High Court has directed the Ministry of Ayush to treat as representation a public interest litigation seeking inclusion of Ayurveda, Yoga and Naturopathy in Union Government's public health insurance scheme Ayushman Bharat Pradhan Mantri Jan Arogya Yojana (PM-JAY).
A bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora directed the Ministry to decide the representation by way of a reasoned order as expeditiously as possible.
Title: RAZORPAY SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR v. JOHN DOE & ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 411
The Delhi High Court has restrained various unknown entities from using the “Razorpay” trademark after the payment getaway service provider filed a suit accusing them of using the mark unauthorizedly by perpetuating fraud on the general public by running a financial scam on the pretext of providing jobs.
Justice Sanjeev Narula directed that the WhatsApp and Telegram channels or accounts operated by the perpetrators be blocked, observing that a prima facie case was made out in favour of Razorpay for grant of an ex-parte ad interim injunction.
Case Title: ASHOK KUMAR versus The State N.C.T Of Delhi
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 412
The Delhi High Court has rejected a bail plea from a man accused of an acid attack seeking medical treatment at a private hospital instead of a mandated government facility. It emphasized that Government hospitals like DDU Hospital are obligated to offer comprehensive medical care, including specialized services, to all patients, including those in custody.
The Court noted that such facilities possess the requisite infrastructure, medical equipment, and expertise to effectively address a broad spectrum of health concerns.
Title: I S v. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 413
The Delhi High Court has observed that whenever a woman makes a reasoned choice to establish physical relations, the consent cannot be said to based on misconception of fact unless there is clear evidence that a false promise was given.
Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta said that the promise must be of immediate relevance and bear a direct nexus to a decision by the woman to engage in a sexual act.
Case Title: Neeraj Sharma v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 414
The Delhi High Court has appointed its former judge, Justice Najmi Waziri, as the Chairman of the Internal Departmental Committee constituted for protection and management of deemed forests in the national capital.
Justice Tushar Rao Gedela requested the Delhi Government to ensure that all facilities and secretarial assistance, as required by Justice Waziri, is provided to him at the earliest.
Delhi High Court Interpretes Rule 11UA For Determination FMV Of Shares U/S 56(2)(viib)
Case Title: Agra Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. Versus Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 415
The Delhi High Court has held that it has interpreted Rule 11UA of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, for determining the fair market value (FMV) of shares under Section 56(2)(viib) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Case Title: Blackberry India Pvt Ltd -Earlier Known As Research In Motion India Pvt Ltd Versus The Commissioner CGST
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 416
The Delhi High Court has held that the department cannot, after being unsuccessful before this Court on its own, declare the refund of the CENVAT credit as well as interest on delayed payments to be an erroneous refund.
Delhi High Court Dismisses Plea To Postpone CA Inter, Final Exams Amid Lok Sabha Polls
Title: Harish Chandra T & Ors v. ICAI
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 418
The Delhi High Court has refused to postpone the Chartered Accountants (CA) inter and final exams 2024 which are scheduled to be held in May.
Justice C Hari Shankar dismissed the plea moved by 27 candidates seeking postponement of exams from May to June in view of the Lok Sabha elections.
Proper Officer Has To Consider Reply On Merits And Then Form An Opinion: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Canara Bank Versus Assistant Commissioner, DGST
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 419
The Delhi High Court has held that the proper officer has to consider the reply on merits and then form an opinion.
The bench of Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Ravinder Dudeja has observed that the proper officer merely held that the reply is incomplete, not clear, and unsatisfactory, which ex-facie shows that the proper officer has not applied his mind to the reply submitted by the petitioner.
Delhi High Court Interprets Rule 11UA For Determination FMV Of Shares U/S 56(2)(viib)
Case Title: Agra Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. Versus Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 420
The Delhi High Court has held that it has interpreted Rule 11UA of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, for determining the fair market value (FMV) of shares under Section 56(2)(viib) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav has observed that Section 56(2)(viib) postulates that the FMV of shares shall be the value determined in accordance with the methods as may be prescribed or as may be substantiated by the company to the satisfaction of the AO, whichever is higher.
Title: DILIP RAY v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 421
The Delhi High Court has stayed the conviction of former Union Minister Dilip Ray in connection with a coal scam case relating to irregularities in the allocation of a Jharkhand block in 1999, to enable him to contest the upcoming Odisha legislative assembly polls.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma clarified that the relief does not amount to an acquittal but is merely a suspension of conviction in peculiar circumstances of the case.
Delhi High Court Disposes 40 Yrs Old Dispute Concerning Infringement Of 'FIELD MARSHAL' Trademark
Title: M/S. P.M. DIESELS P. LTD v. M/S. THUKRAL MECHANICAL WORKS & ORS. and other connected matters
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 422
The Delhi High Court has recently disposed of a 40 year old dispute concerning the infringement of “Field Marshal” trademark.
Justice Prathiba M Singh decreed a suit filed by an entity, PM Diesels Private Limited in 1985 seeking to injunct another entity, Thukral Mechanical Works from using 'Fieldmarshal' or any other mark deceptively similar to its mark.
Case Title: MyPreferred Transformation & Hospitality v. Faridabad Implements Pvt Ltd
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 423
The High Court of Delhi has held that a Petition under Section 34 of the A&C Act cannot be entertained by the Court even if the 30 days condonable grace period given under the proviso to Section 34(3) of the A&C Act expired during the Court breaks and the petition was filed on the date on which the Court reopened.
Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal's ED Arrest In Liquor Policy Case Valid: Delhi High Court
Case Title: ARVIND KEJRIWAL v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 424
The Delhi High Court has dismissed the plea moved by Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal challenging his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in the money laundering case related to the alleged liquor policy scam case.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma upheld his arrest and subsequent remand holding that ED was able to place enough material, statements of approvers and AAP's own candidate stating that Kejriwal was given money for Goa elections.
AO Is Not Clothed With Powers To Ascertain ALP Of Any International Transaction: Delhi High Court
Case Title: M/S. Giesecke And Devrient India Pvt. Ltd.Versus DCIT
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 425
The Delhi High Court has held that AO is not clothed with the powers to ascertain the Arm's Length Price (ALP) of any international transaction.
The bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav has observed that the AO is not clothed with the powers to ascertain the ALP of any international transaction that is selected based on the transfer pricing risk parameters. Furthermore, Section 92CA(4) of the Income Tax Act evidently mandates that the AO cannot deviate itself from the TPO order while computing the total income of the assessee.
Final Determination On Question Of Arbitrability Should Be Made By The Arbitrator: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Prince Chadha v. Amardeep Singh
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 426
The High Court of Delhi has held that final determination on the issue of arbitrability of the dispute and the subject matter should be made by the arbitrator. It held that the scope of Court exercising power under Section 11 of the A&C Act is limited to a prima facie examination of the existence of the agreement.
Case Title: COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 427
The Delhi High Court has recently issued slew of directions on the management of drainage system in the national capital, rejuvenation of water bodies, Yamuna river including its flood plains and rain water harvesting.
A division bench comprising of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora said that Delhi has been facing the fury of river Yamuna in spate year after year with last year being particularly bad.
Case Title: STCI Finance Ltd v. Sukhmani Technologies Pvt Ltd
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 428
The High Court of Delhi has held that mere registration of shares in favor of the pledgee as the "beneficial owner" does not amount to a sale of shares, and the pledgee is not required to account for any sale proceeds until the shares are actually sold to a third party.
Title: KAIRA DISTRICT COOPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS UNION LTD & ANR. v. D N BAHRI TRADING AS THE VELDON CHEMICAL AND FOOD PRODUCT & ANR.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 429
The Delhi High Court has observed that the trademark 'AMUL' has gained a wide, expansive, comprehensive and nation-wide reputation and its products have gone far beyond milk which are now available not only in shops and retail stores, but also in shops which are operated or franchised by it.
“The mark 'AMUL' has therefore acquired huge, undiluted, enduring significance and is relatable to source of goods of petitioners. Also its protection would transcend all classes having been declared a well-known mark,” Justice Anish Dayal said.
Title: ANKITA SINGH v. VICE CHANCELLOR OF JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY AND ORS
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 430
While dealing with a PhD scholar's plea against her rustication, the Delhi High Court has said that the Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) is taking coercive action by rusticating students in complete derogation of its own Rules and in total disregard of principles of natural justice and fair play.
Justice C Hari Shankar stayed an office order issued by the Office of Chief Proctor of the varsity on May 08 last year rusticating one Ankita Singh on the ground that she vandalized the Chairperson's office and misbehaved with students and faculty members.
Case Title: G4S Secure Solutions v. Matrix Cellular (International) Services Ltd
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 431
The High Court of Delhi has held that the balance days of limitation which were available to a party on 15.03.2020 would become available with effect from 01.03.2022, which is the day on which the benefit of the Suo Moto Extension by the Supreme Court expired.
Case Title: NHAI v. M/s IRB Ahmedabad Vadodra Super Express Tollways
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 432
The Single Bench of Justice Prateek Jalan of High Court of Delhi has held that a decision of the arbitral tribunal to refuse to implead a party to the arbitral proceedings does not constitute an 'Interim Award' which can be directly challenged under Section 34 of the Act pending arbitral proceedings.
Title: Sandeep Kumar v. Arvind Kejriwal and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 433
The Delhi High Court came down heavily on former Aam Aadmi Party MLA Sandeep Kumar for filing a petition seeking removal of Arvind Kejriwal from the post of Chief Minister of Delhi. This is the third petition seeking such a relief. Earlier two pleas have been rejected.
A division bench comprising of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora imposed Rs. 50,000 costs on Kumar.
Title: ASHA RANI v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 434
The Delhi High Court has observed that the mere mention of an individual's name in a suicide note cannot be the sole basis for prosecuting him or her to face trial or conviction for the offence of abetment of suicide.
Delhi High Court Awards ₹3.5 Lakh Costs To Puma In Trademark Infringement Suit
Title: PUMA SE v. ASHOK KUMAR TRADING AS R.K. INDUSTRIES
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 435
The Delhi High Court has awarded Rs. 3.5 lakh costs to German multinational corporation, Puma, in a trademark infringement suit against an entity manufacturing various products using the former's trademark “Puma.”
Justice Anish Dayal decreed the suit in favour of Puma and permanently restrained the defendant manufacturer, Ashok Kumar who was trading as RK Industries, from manufacturing products using the “Puma” mark.
Case Title: Saksham Commodities Limited Versus Income Tax Officer
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 436
The Delhi High Court has held that a reopening or abatement would be triggered only upon the discovery of material that is likely to “have a bearing on the determination of the total income” and would have to be examined bearing in mind the AYs' that are likely to be impacted.
Title: GULSHAN KUMAR & ANR. v. NIDHI KASHYAP
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 437
The Delhi High Court has recently observed that the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, is a measure of social justice applicable to each woman, irrespective of religious affiliation or social background.
Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta said that the statute was enacted to safeguard the rights of the victims of 'domestic violence' in 'domestic relationship'.
Title: LOKESH KUMAR v. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 438
The Delhi High Court has ruled that there is no bar under Article 243ZA or 243R of the Constitution of India on political parties, recognized by the State Election Commission (SEC), from contesting municipal elections.
A division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora said that the adoption of Election Symbols of the political parties by the SEC in municipal elections, under the Delhi Municipal Corporation (Election of Councillors) Rules, 2012, is reasonable and not arbitrary.
Use Of The Word 'Seat' Is Not Compulsory In An Arbitration Clause: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Anju Jain v. M/s WTC Noida Development Company Pvt Ltd
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 439
The High Court of Delhi has held that the use of word 'seat' in an arbitration clause is not compulsory to determine the jurisdiction of the Court(s) which would have jurisdiction over the proceedings arising out of the arbitration agreement.
Title: BHAVREEN KANDHARI v. MANDEEP MITTAL
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 440
The Delhi High Court has held a man, a private builder, guilty of contempt for obtaining permission to cut a tree in national capital's Lajpat Nagar area on the basis of “forged and fabricated documents” from the forest department.
Justice Subramonium Prasad observed that the man obtained the permission despite a judicial order passed in July 2021 directing the Tree Officer and the Deputy Conservator of Forest to ensure that the tree in question is not fell or harmed in any manner.
Title: TATA SONS PRIVATE LIMITED v. M/S TATA RESTART & ANR.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 441
The Delhi High Court has ordered the taking down of a “fraudulent website” impersonating Tata Sons Private Limited and luring customers to invest in their ponzi investment scheme.
Justice Sanjeev Narula directed restrained Tata Restart, the entity running the website, from, using Tata or Tata Restart mark or any other mark deceptively similar to the registered marks of Tata Sons.
Title: Court on its own motion v. Union of India and other connected matters
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 442
The Delhi High Court has recently directed the Delhi Government to release a basic tax assignment instalment of Rs. 738 crores to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) to enable payment of outstanding dues by the civic body to its former and serving employees.
In an order passed on April 08, a division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet PS Arora directed the Delhi Government to release the amount within 10 working days.
Case Title: T.V. Today Network Ltd Vs Home And Soul Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 443
The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma held that court at the Section 11(6) stage should refrain from delving into hyper-technical aspects or intricacies of the arbitration agreement. Instead, the bench held that if an agreement visibly contains an arbitration clause and involves a dispute suitable for arbitration, it must be referred to the arbitrator as a matter of course.
Case Title: PCIT Versus Pankaj Buildwell Ltd. & Group
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 444
The Delhi High Court has held that the Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC) is entrusted with the power to grant immunity from penalty and prosecution only in cases of full and true disclosure.
The bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav has observed that once it is seen that the disclosure was not full and truthful, the ITSC loses its jurisdiction to entertain such an application as well as to provide any immunity to the applicant from prosecution and penalties.
Title: EHTESHAM QUTUBUDDIN SIDDIQUI v. CPIO ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 445
The Delhi High Court has recently observed that travel information of an individual is “personal information” which cannot be disclosed to a third party under the Right to Information Act, 2005, unless it is in larger public interest.
“Travel information of any person is personal information and such details cannot be divulged to a third party unless the same is in larger publicinterest which justifies the disclosure of the said information,” Justice Subramonium Prasad said.
Delhi High Court Grants Relief Of As Low As 5% IGST On Import Of Dialysis Machines By FMC India
Case Title: Fresenius Medical Care India Private Limited Versus UOI
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 446
The Delhi High Court has granted relief of as low as 5% Integrated Goods and Service Tax (IGST) on the import of dialysis machines by Fresenius Medical Care India Private Limited (FMC India).
The bench of Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Ravinder Dudeja has observed that dialysis machines covered under HSN Code 9018 and 9031 are liable to be taxed at 5%, essentially awarding a significant rebate of 7% on the import of dialysis machines.
Case Title: Pace Setters Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union Of India And Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 447
The Delhi High Court has held that the rationale to deny input tax credit (ITC) to service providers who are not liable to pay tax on output services is obvious.
The bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan has held that the service providers rendering services on which tax is payable on a reverse charge basis would constitute a class of their own, and a challenge to the same founded on Article 14 of the Constitution of India would necessarily fail.
Case Title: Viduthalai Chiruthaigal Katchi v. ECI
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 448
The Delhi High Court has recently dismissed a plea filed by the Viduthalai Chiruthaigal Katchi (VCK) party for the allotment of "pot" symbol to contest the 2024 general elections.
Justice Sachin Datta finding no merit in the petition, declined to interfere with the ECI's decision. Justice Datta observed, “It is also rightly contended by learned counsel for the Respondent that since the election process for the upcoming election for the year 2024 has already been set in motion, it is too late in the day to interfere with the same and the remedy of the petitioner lies under Section 100 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.”
Title: DOMINOS IP HOLDER LLC & ANR v. MS DOMINO PIZZA & ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 449
The Delhi High Court has restrained eight food outlets in the national capital from using Domino, Domino's, Dominon, Domino's, Dominoz, Domino's and Domain's marks after famous multinational pizza restaurant chain Domino's Pizza sued them over trademark infringement.
Justice Sanjeev Narula directed food delivery platforms, Zomato and Swiggy, to delist, takedown and suspend the outlets from their mobile applications and websites.
Case Title: North East Centre of Technology Application & Reach v. Divine Bamboo Mat Manufacturing
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 450
The Single Bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna of Delhi High Court has held that the period of limitation for filing an application under Section 14 of the A&C Act seeking substitution of the arbitrator is three years from the date when the right to apply accrues.
The Court also held that an arbitrator would be deemed to have abandoned the arbitration if no proceedings take place for a substantial period of time.
Right To Be Identified By One's Name Fundamental To Individual's Identity: Delhi High Court
Title: PRAGATI SHRIVASTAVA v. THE SECRETARY, CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION AND ANR
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 451
The Delhi High Court has recently observed that name of an individual is an identity marker and the right to be identified by one's name is fundamental to one's very identity.
“It partakes, therefore, of a primordial necessity, and the Court has, when petitioned in that regard, to ensure that the request, if genuine, is acceded to,” Justice C Hari Shankar said.
Case Title: Rajiv Channa Vs Union Of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 452
The Delhi High Court has reiterated that if the elementary foundation i.e., the scheduled offence is itself removed, consequential proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 shall also fall.
The division bench comprising Justices Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav And Yashwant Varma observed, “the appellant-Jeevan Kumar had already been acquitted of the scheduled offence, there can be no action for money-laundering against the other appellants in relation to the property linked to the stated scheduled offence. An inference can plausibly be drawn from the legal maxim sublato fundamento cadit opus which means that upon removal of the foundation, the work collapses.”
Case Title: Cobra Instalaciones Y Servicios v. Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigal Ltd
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 453
The High Court of Delhi has held that an arbitrator is empowered to award compensation to an aggrieved party that has suffered losses on the basis of 'rough and ready method' or 'guesswork' when the loss is difficult to prove.
The bench of Justices Rajiv Shakdher and Amit Bansal held that as long as there is material available with the arbitrator that damages have been suffered, but it does not give him an insight into the granular details, he is permitted the leeway to employ honest guesswork and/or a rough and ready method for quantifying damages.
Case Title: Lease Plan India Pvt Ltd v. Rudrakash Pharma Distributor
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 454
The Single Bench of Justice Prateek Jalan of High Court of Delhi has held that service of the petition on the WhatsApp number and the Email address mentioned in the agreement between the parties constitutes a valid service.
Title: VEERPAL @ TITU v. STATE
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 455
While acquitting a man in a POCSO FIR as there were “serious flaws and gaps” in the prosecution case, the Delhi High Court has observed that a false case of an alleged child abuser suffers a blot to social stigma which is more painful than the rigours of trial and imprisonment.
“A child abuser in the eventuality of false implication even continues to suffer a blot of social stigma which is much more painful than the rigours of a trial and imprisonment,” Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta said.
Case Title: Akhil Gupta v. Hindustan Unilever Ltd
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 456
The bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh of Delhi High Court has held that pre-arbitral steps providing for resolution of disputes through mutual talks or through Ombudsman would lose its relevance when a party fails to give reply to notices issued by the other party seeking amicable settlement.
Case Title: M/s Advance Stimul v. GAIL India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 457
The High Court of Delhi has held that a notice given by a party invoking jurisdiction of MSEF Council under Section 18 of the MSMED Act can be considered to be a notice of arbitration required under Section 21 of the A&C Act.
The bench of Justice Pratibha M. Singh held that prior to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Gujarat State Civil Supplies Corporation and M/S Silpi Industries, the position of law with respect to an entity not registered under the MSMED Act at the time of contract was not clear, therefore, the party wrongly invoking jurisdiction of MSEF Council cannot be faulted if it was due to uncertainty in law.
Delhi High Court Rejects Plea Challenging Dissolution Of Maulana Azad Education Foundation
Title: DRSYEDA SAIYIDAIN HAMEDA & ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 458
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a plea challenging the Union Government's decision to dissolve the Maulana Azad Education Foundation (MAEF) which was set up in 1989 for promoting education among educationally backward minorities.
A division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Mini Pushkarna rejected the public interest litigation (PIL) moved by Dr. Syeda Saiyidain Hameed, John Dayal and Daya Singh.
Title: GAURAV BHATIA v. NAVEEN KUMAR & ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 459
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday passed an ad-interim injunction order in favour of Senior Advocate Gaurav Bhatia in his defamation suit against various YouTube channels and X users for posting allegedly “defamatory content” against him over an assault on him last month during a lawyer's strike at the Gautam Budh Nagar District & Sessions Court.
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna disposed of Bhatia's application seeking interim relief in his defamation suit against the YouTube channels and X users.
Title: ROUSE AVENUE BAR ASSOCIATION v. THE BAR COUNCIL OF DELHI & ANR
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 460
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the Central Delhi Court Bar Association shall be the recognized as the Court annexed Bar Association for the Rouse Avenue District Court Complex in the national capital.
“This, we hold is dehors the power of the Bar Council of Delhi to constitute a Bar Association under the Bar Association (Constitution, Recognition & Conduct of Election) Rules, 2019,” a division bench of Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Ravinder Dudeja said.
Title: AARUSHI GUPTA v. STATE GNCT OF DELHI and other connected matter
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 461
The Delhi High Court has observed that where a lover commits suicide due to love failure, the lady cannot be held to have abetted the commission of suicide of the man.
Justice Amit Mahajan ruled that for the wrong decision taken by a man of weak or frail mentality, another person cannot be blamed as having abetted his committing suicide.
Case Title: Magnum Steels Ltd v. Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 462
The High Court of Delhi has held that proceedings under SARFAESI Act and RDDB Act are complimentary to each other and both the proceedings can continue parallelly.
The bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora held that since both the proceedings are complimentary, there would be no application of principle of election of remedies and the secured creditor can avail both the remedies together.
Case Title: NHAI v. M/s Ssangyong Engineering & Construction Co. Ltd
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 463
The High Court of Delhi has held that non-adjudication, by the arbitral tribunal, upon an issue that goes to the root of the matter would make the arbitral award opposed to public policy. It held that such an award would be set aside under Section 34 of the A&C Act.
Case Title: NHAI v. M/s Ssangyong Engineering & Construction Co. Ltd
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 464
The High Court of Delhi has held that an arbitration award, in which the tribunal rendered findings contrary to its own observations, falls within the rubric 'Public Policy' under Section 34 of the Act.
Delhi High Court Quashes Centre's Circular Banning Sale And Breeding Of 'Dangerous & Ferocious Dogs'
Title: SIKANDER SINGH THAKUR & ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. and other connected matters
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 465
The Delhi High Court has quashed a circular issued by the Union Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry and Dairying, Department of Animal Husbandry and Dairying prohibiting the import, breeding and selling of several “dangerous and ferocious” dog breeds.
A division bench comprising of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora quashed the circular issued on March 12 after the Union Government's counsel said that there was no objection if the same is set aside with a direction to issue a fresh circular after giving an opportunity to all the stakeholders to raise their objections.
Case Title: M Tech Developers Pvt. Ltd. Versus National Faceless Assessment Centre
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 466
The Delhi High Court has held that the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) cannot sustain invocation of penalty proceedings based on their own failure to lodge a claim under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) within time.
Case Title: Sunshine Capital Limited Versus DCIT
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 467
The Delhi High Court has held that the Department has failed to comply with Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's (ITAT's) Order in passing a fresh assessment order within the stipulated time.
Title: COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 468
The Delhi High Court has directed the Secretary and Principal Health Secretary of the Delhi Government to implement immediate measures for optimization of existing resources in various government hospitals in the national capital within 30 days as recommended by a six-member expert committee.
A division bench comprising of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet PS Arora directed the two officials to indicate a road map as to how they intend to implement the intermediate and long term measures within the timeline stipulated by the court appointed Expert Committee.
Title: X v. Y
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 469
The Delhi High Court has recently observed that making derogatory complaints to the employer of the spouse to harm professional reputation and financial well-being amounts to cruelty.
A division bench comprising Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna said that making such complaints demonstrates a lack of mutual respect and goodwill, which is crucial for a healthy marriage.
Case Title: Videshi Kumar v State
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 470
While overturning the conviction and life sentence of two individuals accused of a murder over 26 years ago, the Delhi High Court has acquitted them of all charges, while ruling that being "last seen together" with the victim is insufficient grounds for guilt.
In their ruling on the appeals against the trial court's October 2001 decision, Justices Suresh Kumar Kait and Manoj Jain stated that the fact that the accused and victim worked together meant their being together wasn't necessarily unusual. They also expressed doubts about the reliability of the witnesses' testimonies.
Case Title: Telecommunication Consultants India Ltd v. Shivaa Trading
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 471
The High Court of Delhi has held that an award passed by a unilaterally appointed arbitrator can be challenged on ground of invalidity of such appointment and consequent lack of jurisdiction even by the party who made such an appointment.
Case Title: M/S Jain Cement Udyog (Through Proprietor Sh. Sanjay Jain) Versus CBIC
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 472
The Delhi High Court has held that GST registration cancellation passed solely for non-filing of reply is unsustainable.
The bench of Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Ravinder Dudeja has observed that the matter was liable to be remitted to the proper officer for re-adjudication.
Delhi High Court Rules In Favour Of Bhaktivedanta Book Trust In ISKCON Copyright Infringement Case
Title: THE BHAKTIVEDANTA BOOK TRUST INDIA v. WWW.FRIENDWITHBOOKS.CO
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 473
The Delhi High Court has ruled in favour of Bhaktivedanta Book Trust, which reproduces the writings and speeches of ISKCON founder Srila Prabhupada, in its suit against a website over copyright infringement.
Justice Anish Dayal decreed the suit against the website www.friendwithbooks.co, which was carrying copies of the books in which copyright vests with the Trust, without any authorization.
Title: We, the People of India v. Union of India and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 474
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a PIL seeking release of Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal on “extra ordinary interim bail” in all the criminal cases registered by against him, including the Enforcement Directorate (ED), which are pending for inquiry or trial, till completion of his tenure.
A division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora said the petition is not maintainable as Kejriwal is in judicial custody and has the means to approach court and file appropriate proceedings.
Case Title: Paisalo Digital Limited v. Sat Priya Mehmia Memorial Educational Trust
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 475
The Delhi High Court has held that assurance given by a party to repay the debts in letter issued to the other party would amount to an acknowledgement of the debt within the meaning of Section 18 of the Limitation Act.
The bench of Justic Prathiba M. Singh held that such an acknowledgement would give rise to a fresh cause of action and the period of limitation would run afresh from the date of such acknowledgement as provided under Section 18 of the Limitation Act.
Case Title: Paisalo Digital Limited v. Sat Priya Mehmia Memorial Educational Trust
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 476
The Delhi High Court has imposed costs of Rs. 5 lakhs on a party that failed to disclose an unfavourable order under SARFAESI Act while seeking interim relief under Section 9 of the A&C Act.
The bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh held that pendency of proceedings under SARFASI Act is not a bar on initiation of proceedings under A&C Act, however, a party must disclose a fact essential for fair adjudication on the dispute.
Case Title: Pankaj Singh V. Bashir Ahmed Haroon
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 477
The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma has held that while the court's jurisdiction is limited at the time of making a reference, it is not expected to mechanically refer the dispute to arbitration.
The Court also held that once a party has chosen to file a civil suit to get the disputes resolved, it cannot be permitted to invoke arbitration when the suit fails. The Court also held that arbitration clause in an earlier agreement cannot be invoked if the subsequent agreement does not refer to the previous agreement.
Case Title: Roshan Real Estates Pvt Ltd v. Public Work Development Delhi
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 478
The High Court of Delhi has held that the appointment of the arbitrator cannot be called unilateral when the tribunal was constituted pursuant to the consent by the respondent to the appointment from a panel of 5 names.
The Bench of Justice Prathiba M.Singh held that appointment of arbitrator from a panel of 5 names consisting of retired govt. officials would be valid in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Central Organisation for Railways which continues to hold the field despite pending before a larger bench in absence of a stay on the judgment.
Case Title: Religare Finvest Limited v. Widescreen Holdings Pvt Ltd
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 479
The bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna of Delhi High Court has held that mandate of the arbitrator cannot be terminated when the delay in proceedings was on account of pendency of appeal against the decision of the arbitral tribunal.
The Court held that time consumed in the appeal and the consequent SLP and clarificatory applications cannot be attributed to the arbitral tribunal as a delay in the conduct of arbitral proceedings.
Title: ST. STEPHEN'S COLLEGE v. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI AND ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 480
The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi University (DU) to ensure that henceforth, the allocation or allotment of PG seats in St Stephen's College is not disproportionate.
Justice C Hari Shankar said that while ensuring the allocation, DU may consider the infrastructure available with the concerned College and the number of UG students in that course of study admitted.
Case Title: Samrata Constructions Company v. Union of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 481
The High Court of Delhi has held that when the arbitral tribunal fails to deal with submissions of a party on a contentious issue, the resultant award would not fulfil the requirements of a reasoned award as required under Section 31 of the A&C Act. It held that the tribunal cannot simply accept unquantified claims without assigning reasons and without dealing with the objections to those claims.
The bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Tara Vitasta Ganju held that once it is found that the agreement has been validly terminated in accordance with the terms of the Contract, it follows that the earnest money is not liable to be refunded.
Case Title: Religare Finvest Limited v. Widescreen Holdings Pvt Ltd
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 482
The High Court of Delhi has held that a Court exercising powers under Sections 14 & 15 of the A&C Act can extend the mandate of the arbitrator if no ground for its substitution is made out in the application.
The bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna held that once the Court is satisfied that there is no ground for substitution of the arbitrator, the Court can extend the mandate even without an application under Section 29A(4) of the Act.
Title: PT PRASADI LAL KAKAJI TEACHER TRAINING COLLEGE v. NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION & ANR and other connected matters
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 483
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) is a “State” for the purposes of Article 19(6) of the Constitution of India.
Justice C Hari Shankar held that an executive decision taken by the NCTE would also, therefore, constitute “law” for the purposes of Article 19(6).
Title: SALIM MALIK @ MUNNA v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 484
The Delhi High Court has denied bail to Salim Malik alias Munna in the case registered under Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, alleging a larger conspiracy in the 2020 North-East Delhi riots.
A division bench comprising Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Manoj Jain observed that there was enough material on record which clearly indicated that Malik was a co-conspirator and committed the offence for which he was chargesheeted.
Title: DELHI STATE LEGAL SERVICES AUTHORITY v. ANNWESHA DEB
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 485
The Delhi High Court has held that the appointment of candidates with Delhi State Legal Services Authority (DSLSA) as a panel lawyer is only professional and not as an employee, and they are not entitled to benefits under the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961.
A division bench comprising Justice V Kameswar Rao and Justice Saurabh Banerjee set aside a single-judge order granting maternity benefits to a pregnant woman, who was engaged in contractual employment with Delhi State Legal Services Authority as a panel lawyer.
Case Title: KARAN S THUKRAL v. THE DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE & ORS
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 486
The Delhi High Court has observed that the situation in the record rooms of the District Courts in the national capital is grim and the process of weeding out of the record needs to be carried out expeditiously.
A division bench comprising of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora said that the process of weeding out needs to be monitored on a regular basis.
Title: COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 487
The Delhi Police has framed a standard operating procedure (SOP) to be followed by Universities and Colleges while organizing events or festivals for ensuring safety and security of students in general, and female students in particular.
A division bench comprising of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora closed a suo motu PIL initiated last year on the issue of “security breaches” particularly in respect of female attendees at various fests organized by colleges or universities in the Delhi-NCR region.
Title: JIWESH KUMAR & ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 488
The Delhi High Court has recently observed that the right to obtain a licence as a registered Ayurvedic or Unani medical practitioner vests only in a student who holds a BAMS or BUMS degree.
Justice C Hari Shankar said that prior to obtaining such a degree, the student has no right to practice as a registered medical practitioner.
S.354 IPC: Delhi High Court Quashes FIR Against Man, Asks Him To Assist Traffic Police For A Month
Title: VIKAS BOHAT v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 489
Quashing an FIR against a man for outraging modesty of a woman, the Delhi High Court has asked him to assist the Traffic Police at a traffic signal for 30 days.
Justice Navin Chawla quashed the FIR registered for the offences under Sections 354 (assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty), 506 (criminal intimidation) and 509 (word, gesture or act intending to insult modesty of a woman) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Title: MANMOHAN SINGH & ANR v. SHITAL SINGH & ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 490
The Delhi High Court has observed that a Hindu woman without having her own income has complete rights to enjoy, throughout her lifetime, the property received by her from the deceased husband but cannot have “absolute rights” over it.
“In the case of Hindu women, who may not have their own income, receiving a life estate given to them by their husbands—who may predecease them—is an essential safeguard for their financial security during their lifetime,” Justice Prathiba M Singh said.
Title: VAIBHAV v. JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 491
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a plea challenging the decision of Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) to give 80% quota in the First Year of 3-year B.A. (Hons.) programme in Foreign Languages for the students who passed their class XII examination in the year of seeking admission or the previous year.
The remaining 20% of the seats are given to all other candidates.
Title: JAMSHEED ZAHOOR PAUL v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 492
The Delhi High Court has denied regular bail to a 25 year old Kashmiri man booked under Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, observing that he being a supporter of ideology of banned terrorist organization ISIS, arranged illegal weapons and was involved in providing other logistic support to its cadres.
A division bench comprising Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Manoj Jain dismissed the bail plea of Jamsheed Zahoor Paul who was arrested by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) in 2018.
Title: JAI ANANT DEHADRAI v. MAHUA MOITRA & ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 493
Advocate Jai Anant Dehadrai has withdrawn from the Delhi High Court his defamation suit against Trinamool Congress leader Mahua Moitra.
Dehadrai had sued Moitra for allegedly making defamatory statements against him on social media as well as print and electronic media.
Title: SETARA BIBI v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 494
The Delhi High Court has ordered expeditious conclusion of the magisterial enquiry into the death of a 32 year old man allegedly in the custody of police officials of Subhash Place police station.
Sheikh Sahadat died on July 23 last year. His wife moved a plea seeking registration of FIR against the erring cops as well as to constitute Special Investigation Team for impartial investigation into the FIR.
Title: GAUTAM KUMAR LAHA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 495
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation seeking issuance of guidelines for release of undertrial prisoners on bail under check of a judicial officer.
A division bench comprising of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora rejected the PIL moved by Gautam Kumar Laha, observing that the issue is pending before the Supreme Court and is being supervised there.
Haj Pilgrims Should Only Be Handled By Persons Not Accused Of 'Deceiving' Others: Delhi High Court
Title: AL ISLAM TOUR CORPORATION v. UNION OF INDIA
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 496
The Delhi High Court has observed that Hajis being very pious pilgrims should be handled only by persons who do not have allegations of swindling or deceiving people on them.
Justice Subramonium Prasad said that the Haj Policy states that the Central Government has the right to debar the Haj Group Organizers (HGOs) against whom complaints have been received and who are involved with the pilgrims.
Title: X v. Y
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 498
The Delhi High Court has recently observed that falsely accusing a spouse of being in an extra marital relationship and denying parentage of the children constitutes mental cruelty.
A division bench comprising of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna said that repudiation of the matrimonial bond and refusal to accept the children, who are innocent victims in the vile allegations made by the spouse, is nothing but the act of mental cruelty of the gravest kind.
Case Title: Hardy Exploration & Production (India) Inc v. Government of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 497
The Delhi High Court has imposed Rs. 50,000 cost on Central government for seeking repeated adjournments in a petition for enforcement of an arbitral award, allegedly having a monetary value of over Rs.1100 crores.
The bench of Justice Prateek Jalan noted that the Union had sought another adjournment despite the objections of party seeking enforcement and the assurance given by the Union on last hearing that no further adjournments shall be sought.
Case Title: Vijay Kumar v Union of India & Ors
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 499
The Delhi High Court recently dismissed a PIL challenging the alleged illegal deputation and subsequent extensions of Uttar Pradesh IAS officer Aunjaneya Kumar Singh.
Singh came to limelight for lodging over 60 FIRs against Samajwadi Party leader Azam Khan and his son Abdullah Khan.
Title: Kush Kalra v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 500
The Delhi High Court has directed the Union Ministry of Defence to decide a plea seeking the inclusion of women candidates for recruitment in the Indian Military Academy, Indian Naval Academy and Air Force Academy through the Combined Defence Services (CDS) Examination.
A division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet PS Arora directed the Union Government to decide the representation filed by Kush Kalra, in accordance with the law within eight weeks.
Go First Case: Delhi High Court Directs DGCA To Process De-Registration Of Leased Aircrafts
Title: Accipiter Investments Aircraft 2 Limited v. Union of India & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 501
The Delhi High Court has passed a slew of directions to de-register 54 aircrafts of various lessors on lease with the crisis-hit airline Go First.
While disposing of a batch of pleas moved by the lessors, Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju set aside the communication letters issued by the Director General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) declining to process new registration applications of the lessors.
Title: SANGHMITRA v. STATE
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 502
The Delhi High Court has said that issues such as gender equality and cultural diversity must be made part of the curriculum of the Delhi Judicial Academy, observing that hidden biases are enemies of impartial and equitable judgments.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed that judicial education and training, focused not only on legal principles but also on understanding the diverse backgrounds and lived realities of those who come before the court, will go a long way in changing society's stereotypical thinking as it will result in better drafted judgments.
Case Title: Heifer Project International v. Heifer Project India Trust
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 503
The Delhi High Court has issued a permanent injunction in favor of Heifer Project International in a trademark infringement dispute against Heifer Project India Trust.
Justice Sanjeev Narula, presiding over the case, highlighted that it was a clear instance of 'triple identity'.
Tile: RAHUL DEV v. STATE
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 504
The Delhi High Court has granted two weeks parole to a man, convicted in a murder case and sentenced to life, for attending his engagement ceremony and marriage.
Justice Amit Sharma allowed the plea moved by convict Rahul Dev who was convicted in 2014 for the offences under Section 302 (punishment for murder) and 201 (causing disappearance of evidence or giving false information to screen offender) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Case Title: M/S Sunshine Caterers Private Limited Versus Union Of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 505
The Delhi High Court has upheld the disqualification as the CA Certificate did not match details on the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) portal as per the Unique Document Identification Number (UDIN).
The bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora has observed that the discrepancy has arisen on account of the non-mention of the certified information by the petitioner's Chartered Accountant in the corresponding UDIN certificate in the field under the heading 'Figures/Particulars'.
Case Title: Director General, Delhi Doordarshan Kendra vs Mohd. Shahbaz Khan and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 506
The Delhi High Court division bench of Justice Rekha Palli and Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain held that the scope of intervention of the High Court is very limited in matters of factual findings made by Industrial Tribunals unless they were found to be perverse or based on no evidence.
Case Title: Mukesh Kumar Singh Versus Commissioner Of Delhi GST
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 507
The Delhi High Court has held that one of the consequences of cancelling a taxpayer's registration with retrospective effect is that the taxpayer's customers are denied the input tax credit availed in respect of the supplies made by the taxpayer.
Case Title: M/s Oasis Projects Ltd v. National Highway & Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 508
The High Court of Delhi has held that a contract cannot be debarred or blacklisted without a prior notice or opportunity of hearing even in cases where there is a provision in the contract for deemed debarment in case of termination of the contract.
Case Title: Larsen & Turbo Ltd v. IREO Victory Valley Pvt Ltd
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 509
The High Court of Delhi has held that an arbitration clause contained in the original agreement would fall if the agreement is superseded by a settlement agreement without an arbitration clause.
The bench of Justice Pratibha M. Singh held that if a mutual settlement supersedes the original contract, the original arbitration clause would not survive and if there is unilateral repudiation, then the arbitration clause may survive depending on the facts.
Title: ASHOK KUMAR SINGH AND ORS v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 510
The Delhi High Court has refused to entertain a PIL seeking “authoritative interpretation” of Section 66 of PMLA, alleging that ED is pressurizing the police and CBI to file FIRs under predicate offence on the basis of the information shared by it with the agencies.
A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora granted liberty to the petitioners, Ashok Kumar Singh and another individual, to raise the issue of interpretation before appropriate courts in appropriate proceedings.
Title: Anand S Jondhale v. Shri Rajiv Kumar Chief Election Commissioner of India & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 511
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a plea seeking to disqualify Prime Minister Narendra Modi for six years for allegedly seeking votes for the Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP) in the name of Hindu as well as Sikh deities and place of worships.
The plea was moved by Anand S Jondhale, a lawyer by profession.
Case Title: Appolo Handloom Manufacturing Co-Op Society Ltd v. All India Handloom Fabrics Society
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 512
The High Court of Delhi has held that a petition under Section 11(6) of the A&C Act can be entertained by the High Court to direct the 'Central Registrar' of Co-operative Societies to appoint an arbitrator under Section 84 of Multi State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002 after it fails to act on the request of the party.
Title: Social Jurist v. Gnctd & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 513
The Delhi High Court has said that the decision of Arvind Kejriwal to continue to hold the position of Chief Minister despite his arrest is his “personal decision” but his non-availability cannot come in the way of young children studying in MCD schools from receiving their free text books, writing material and uniform forthwith.
A division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet PS Arora observed that national interest and public interest demands that no person who holds the post of Chief Minister is incommunicado or absent for a long stretch of time or for an uncertain period time.
Case Title: M/s Oravel Stays Pvt Ltd v. Nikhil Bhalla
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 514
The High Court of Delhi has held that an arbitration clause contained in the terms and conditions available on the website of a company would get incorporated in the agreement between the parties if the agreement makes an express reference and provide a hyperlink to T&Cs.
Case Title: Sun & Sand Industries Africa Pvt. Ltd Versus Sales Tax Officer Class-Ii/Avato Department Of Trade And Taxes
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 515
The Delhi High Court has held that, as per Section 75(5) of the GST Act, if sufficient cause is shown, the proper officer shall adjourn the hearing; however, not more than three adjournments may be granted.
Unfortunate That Tenancy Litigation In India Takes More Than A Decade To Fructify: Delhi High Court
Title: SATPAL SINGH SARNA & ORS v. SATYA PRAKASH BANSAL
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 516
The Delhi High Court has observed that it is unfortunate that the litigation in India, especially the tenancy litigation under the rent control legislation, takes more than a decade to fructify.
Title: MUBEEN KADAR SHAIKH v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI and other connected matters
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 517
The Delhi High Court has denied bail to three accused persons in the UAPA case concerning the 2008 serial blasts in the national capital that claimed 26 lives.
A division bench comprising Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Shalinder Kaur dismissed the appeals moved by Mubeen Kadar Shaikh and Saquib Nisar.
Accused Mansoor Asghar Peerbhoy was denied bail by the division bench comprising Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Manoj Jain.
Case Title: Rumit Kumar Vs Transport Department GNCTD And Ors
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 518
The Delhi High Court has held that though Section 52 of the Motor Vehicles Act (which talks about alteration in motor vehicle) does not explicitly permit bullet-proofing of vehicles, nonetheless the registration of a vehicle cannot be suspended for bullet proofing in absence of a specific finding that such modification causes danger to the public as stipulated under Section 53 of the Act.
Title: BHAVIK KOLADIYA v. ASHNEER GROVER & ANR.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 519
The Delhi High Court has restrained BharatPe's Former Managing Director Ashneer Grover from making any third party rights or interest in the 16,110 shares transferred to him by fintech company's co-founder Bhavik Koladiya.
Justice Prateek Jalan passed the order on the interim application filed by Koladiya in his suit against Grover.
Title: RAJAN SINGH v. THE STATE GOVT OF NCT DELHI & OTHERS
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 520
The Delhi High Court has granted police protection to a transgender person for filling up the nomination form in the upcoming Lok Sabha Elections as a candidate from South Delhi Parliamentary Constituency.
Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta observed that Article 14 of the Constitution of India ensures equal protection of laws in all spheres of State activity, including participation in the election process.
Case Title: Ayesha Sankhla (Through Guardian Kapil Kumar Sankhala) Vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 521
In a recent legal ruling, the Delhi High Court dismissed a petition seeking admission for a student from the Economically Weaker Section (EWS) in a private school for the academic year 2024-2025.
The petitioner, Ayesha Sankhla, had applied for admission to Nursery/Pre-School grade in the academic year 2022-2023. Notably, under the regime of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (the RTE Act), she belongs to the Disadvantaged Group (DG), who is entitled to admission to entry level classes under Section 121 of the said Act on preferential basis.
Title: KASHMIR HARVARD EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTE v. PRESIDENT AND FELLOWS OF HARVARD COLLEGE
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 522
The Delhi High Court has dismissed an appeal against a single judge order which upheld an arbitral award directing transfer of a domain name registered by Kashmir Harvard Educational Institute based in Srinagar to the President and Fellows of Harvard College in the United States of America.
A division bench comprising Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju rejected the appeal moved by the Institute with costs of Rs. 50,000.
'Sextortion' Is A Social Menace, Represents Profound Violation Of Privacy: Delhi High Court
Title: SOUKIN v. THE NCT STATE NEW DELHI and other connected matters
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 523
The Delhi High Court has observed that 'sextortion' is a significant social menace which represents a profound violation of privacy.
Justice Amit Mahajan said that sextortion not only undermines individual dignity but also poses serious challenges to law enforcement due to its “clandestine and cross-jurisdictional nature.”
Title: AMARJEET GUPTA v. ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA & ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 524
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a PIL seeking a direction upon the Election Commission of India (ECI) to develop a mechanism to ensure that arrested political leaders are allowed to campaign through VC for the ongoing Lok Sabha polls 2024.
A division bench comprising of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet PS Arora said that it is a highly adventurous plea, contrary to fundamental principles of law.
Case Title: ANIL KUMAR HAJELAY & ORS. v. HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 525
The Delhi High Court has recently issued various directions for implementing the project for having hybrid hearing in the courts in the national capital.
A division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet PS Arora directed the Delhi Government to forthwith expedite the financial sanction in respect of all 691 courts as stated in preliminary estimate of approximately Rs. 387 crore.
Life Of Provisional Attachment Order Is Only One Year: Delhi High Court
Case Title: M/S Krish Overseas Versus Commissioner Central Tax-Delhi West & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 526
The Delhi High Court has held that the life of an order of provisional attachment is only one year.
The bench of Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Ravinder Dudeja has observed that the communication of attachment is dated August 14, 2019, and a period of one year has elapsed since the issuance of the communication.
Title: ACTION COMMITTEE UNAIDED RECOGNIZED PRIVATE SCHOOLS v. DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 527
The Delhi High Court has stayed a circular issued by the Delhi Government stating that no recognized private unaided school in the national capital, which has been allotted land by government agencies, shall enhance fee for the upcoming 2024-25 academic session without the prior sanction of Director of Education (DoE).
Justice C Hari Shankar stayed the circular issued on March 27 which barred all Private Recognized Unaided Schools from raising the fee without prior sanction of the DoE.
Title: DELHI BUILDING AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION WORKERS WELFARE BOARD v. DULARI DEVI & ANR.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 528
The Delhi High Court has observed that monthly pension of Rs. 3000 to building and construction workers is minuscule, given the cost of living in a city like the national capital.
The building and construction workers are, who are registered with the Delhi Building and Other Construction Workers Welfare Board, are entitled for a monthly pension of Rs. 3000 after completion of 60 years.
Title: PFIZER PRODUCTS INC. v. RENOVISION EXPORTS PVT. LTD. AND ANR.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 529
The Delhi High Court has permanently restrained a homeopathic oil manufacturer from selling its products under the mark “Vigoura” after pharmaceutical company Pfizer accused it of infringing its registered trademark “Viagra” used for an erectile dysfunction allopathic drug.
Justice Sanjeev Narula observed that the trademark “Viagra” is highly recognized by its name in the sphere of erectile dysfunction drugs and has also acquired national and global repute.
Title: SHOAIB ALAM @ BOBBY v. STATE and other connected matters
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 530
The Delhi High Court has granted bail to three men, Shoaib Alam, Gulfam and Javed, accused in the murder case of Intelligence Bureau (IB) staffer Ankit Sharma during the 2020 North-East Delhi riots.
Justice Navin Chawla however dismissed the bail plea moved by other accused, Nazim, in the case.
Delhi High Court Refuses To Entertain PIL For Having 4-Yr LLB Course
Case Title: ASHWINI KUMAR UPADHYAY v. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 531
The Delhi High Court has refused to entertain a PIL seeking a direction on Centre to constitute a “Legal Education Commission” comprising of retired judges, law professors and lawyers to ascertain the feasibility of four years LLB course.
A division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet PS Arora remarked that it is not the court's domain to design courses and that the authorities will decide the issue.
Case Title: CIT verses Dabur India Ltd
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 532
The Delhi High Court dismisses Revenue's appeal against ITAT's order in case of Dabur India Ltd., while reiterating that for purpose of deduction u/s 80IB & 80IC of the Income tax Act, the only essential requisite is that the eligible industrial undertakings should be carrying out manufacture or production of articles or things.
Case Title: Shri Sita Ram & Others vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 533
The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh held that implementation of revised pay scales involves executive discretion and courts do not have the authority to intervene unless there is evidence of illegality or a glaring irregularity.
The case involved allegations against the Municipal Corporation of Delhi for failure to implement an enhanced pay scale for its technicians, as recommended by the 5th Pay Commission. It was held that the petitioners (technicians) were not entitled to the enhanced pay scale since it couldn't be construed as a legally vested right.
Title: LAWYER'S VOICE v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 534
The Delhi High Court on Thursday disposed of a public interest litigation (PIL) to curb circulation of deepfake videos during the ongoing Lok Sabha polls, observing that it cannot pass a direction in the middle of the elections and that the Election Commission of India (ECI) is not remediless and will act on the issue.
A division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet PS Arora disposed of the PIL filed by lawyers voice and asked the petitioner to file a comprehensive representation to the ECI during the course of the day.
Case Title: Remy Israni vs R. B. Seth Jessa Ram Hospital And Bros
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 535
The Delhi High Court division bench of Justice Rekha Palli and Justice Saurabh Banerjee partially upheld the order of an Industrial Tribunal to allow a Worklady to submit additional documents along with her affidavit of evidence. The bench held that the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is a beneficial legislation where the strict timelines under the Commercial Courts Act or the CPC ought not to be applied.
Case Title:M/S Madras Trading Co Vs Ramjeet @ Ramajeet & Anr
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 536
The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Dharmesh Sharma held that Section 30 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923, which provides for appeals against orders of compensation and other related matters, can only be exercised when the appeal involves a substantial question of law.
Title: SUNNY ALIAS RAVI KUMAR v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHII
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 537
The Delhi High Court has observed that no wrongdoing can be attributed if two consenting adults indulge in consensual sexual activity, regardless of their marital status.
“While societal norms dictate that sexual relations should ideally occur within the confines of marriage, no wrongdoing can be attributed if consensual sexual activity occurs between two consenting adults, regardless of their marital status,” Justice Amit Mahajan said.
Title: SUNAYANA SIBAL & ORS. v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 538
The Delhi High Court has ordered action against the use of spurious Oxytocin hormone in dairy colonies in the national capital and directed that the cases registered be investigated by jurisdictional police stations.
A division bench comprising of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet PS Arora said that administering Oxytocin amounts to animal cruelty and is a cognizable offence under Section 12 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960.
Coal Scam: Delhi High Court Orders Renewal Of Ex-MP Vijay Darda's Passport For Three Years
Title: VIJAY DARDA v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 539
The Delhi High Court has ordered renewal of passport of former Rajya Sabha MP Vijay Darda, convicted in a coal scam case, for a period of three years.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed that Darda was granted permission on past many occasions to travel abroad and he did not misused the liberty granted to him.
Case Title: National Highways Authority Of India Vs M/S Kcc Buildcon Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 540
The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh held that making allegations against the Arbitral Tribunal without any basis is contrary to the letter and spirit of the arbitral process.
Case Title: Feroz Ahmed Bhatt Vs State Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 541
The Delhi High Court has declined parole to Feroz Ahmed Bhatt, a convicted terrorist who has served over two decades in prison and had applied for temporary release to travel to Jammu and Kashmir.
The court cited concerns that his presence in the region could pose a threat to broader security interests. Despite the convict's request for parole to visit his parents and marry, the court ruled against it. Instead, the court directed the jail superintendent to facilitate a one-time video call between Bhatt and his parents.
Case Name- Dr. Shashi Bhushan Vs. University of Delhi
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 542
A single judge bench of the Delhi High Court comprising of Justice Tushar Rao Gedela while deciding a Writ Petition in the case of Dr. Shashi Bhushan Vs. University of Delhi has held that a candidate even in the final selection list does not have an indefeasible right to appointment.
Case Title: Kanchanjunga Building Employees Union Vs Kanchanjunga Flat Owner's Society & Anr
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 543
The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh held that the onus of proof in establishing an employer-employee relationship rests with the party making such a claim. The High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by certain Workmen hired on a contractual basis, who failed to establish a direct relationship with the Association they were working for.
Transfer, Being An Exigency Of Service, Is Neither A Matter Of Right Nor Choice: Delhi High Court
Case Name- Pawan Kumar Mathuri. vs UOI & Ors
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 544
A Division bench of the Delhi High Court comprising of Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Saurabh Banerjee while deciding a Writ Petition in the case of Pawan Kumar Mathuri. vs UOI & Ors. has held that transfer, being an exigency of service, is neither a matter of right nor a matter of choice.
Title: DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT v. AKHILESH SINGH & ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 545
The Delhi High Court has ruled that once a person is discharged or acquitted from the scheduled offence, the properties attached under the PMLA cannot legally be treated as proceeds of crime or be viewed as property derived or obtained from criminal activity.
Cost Of Air Conditioning Services Provided In Schools Have To Be Borne By Parents: Delhi High Court
Title: MANISH GOEL v. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 546
The Delhi High Court has observed that the cost of air conditioning services provided to children in schools have to be borne by the parents.
Case Name- AIIMS vs Ashok Kumar
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 547
A single bench of the Delhi High Court comprising of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh while deciding a Writ Petition in the case of AIIMS vs Ashok Kumar has held that when the termination is found to be illegal, grant of reinstatement with full back wages has to be provided as per the facts and circumstances of each case and shall not be awarded mechanically.
Title: ASHOK KUMAR v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 548
The Delhi High Court has observed that if the provision of furlough is bound by rigid and mechanical interpretations of the Prison Rules, it will lose its true purpose and shine.
Case Title: Right Choice Marketing Solutions Jlt & Ors Vs State Nct Of Delhi & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 549
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that where a "foreign cheque" is deposited for encashment in India, the Court within whose jurisdiction it is so deposited shall have the jurisdiction to adjudicate on the complaint for its dishonour under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act).
Case Name- Commissioner of Police & Ors vs Sant Ram
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 550
A division bench of the Delhi High Court comprising of Justice Rekha Palli and Justice Saurabh Banerjee while deciding a Writ Petition in the case of Commissioner of Police & Ors vs Sant Ram has held that enquiry cannot be dispensed with only on the basis of a perceived notion that the accused being a police personnel would threaten the witnesses and holding of an enquiry would cause trauma to the complainant
NewsClick UAPA Case: Delhi High Court Orders Release Of Approver Amit Chakraborty
Title: Amit Chakraborty v. State
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 551
The Delhi High Court has ordered release of NewsClick Human Resources head Amit Chakraborty seeking bail after turning approver in the UAPA case registered following allegations of the portal receiving money for pro-China propaganda.
Title: AMMAR ABDUL RAHIMAN v. NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 552
While granting bail to an accused in a UAPA case, the Delhi High Court has said that merely because his mobile was found carrying incriminating material like “photographs of terrorist Osama Bin Laden, Jihad Promotion and ISIS flags” and he was accessing lectures of “hard-liner or Muslim preachers” would not be enough to brand him as a member of a banned terrorist organization like ISIS.
Title: KAMLESH DEVI v. STATE OF DELHI NCT & ANR.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 553
The Delhi High Court has observed that minors must also be taught about “virtual touch” and not just traditional concepts of “good and bad touch”, and said that the ”emerging concept” must be included in their curriculum.
Case Title: Global Vectra Helicorp Limited Versus Assessment Unit, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 554
The Delhi High Court has held that the income tax department should allow personal hearings through the national faceless assessment centre on the assessee's request.
Title: ANKIT MISHRA & ANR. v. SANTOSH SHARMA & ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 555
The Delhi High Court has imposed Rs. 1 lakh costs on a man who made “Lord Hanuman” a party objector (appellant) to an appeal concerning the dispute of a temple constructed on a private land and claiming the right to worship therein.
Title: PRITPAL SINGH v. STATE
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 556
While quashing an FIR registered against a man under the Arms Act, 1959, the Delhi High Court has asked him to pay costs of Rs. 50,000 to be deposited with Delhi Police Welfare Fund and three district court Bar Associations.
Title: SONU @ SUNIL v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 557
The Delhi High Court has recently observed that Courts are persuaded to save lives of an accused, rather than to make him undergo trial and punishment, in cases where children, who are about to attain the age of majority, commit acts in the name of love amounting to offence under various enactments, including POCSO Act.
Case Name- Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors vs Virender
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 558
A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising of Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta while deciding a Civil Writ Petition in the case of Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors vs Virender has held that a termination order which is based on the report of an inquiry in which misconduct of a definite nature was arrived at behind the back of the officer is violative of principles of natural justice.
Case Title: E-EIGHTEEN.COM LTD vs KRISHNAA @ JAGTAR SINGH & ORS
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 559
The Delhi High Court has issued an ex-parte ad-interim injunction order in favor of E-Eighteen.com Ltd, a subsidiary of the Network18 group, in a trademark dispute suit.
Case Title: The Executive Engineer & Ors. Vs M/S Bholasingh Jaiprakash Construction Ltd. & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 560
The Delhi High Court division bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora held that the proper recourse against proceedings under the MSMED Act is to file an application under Section 18(3) of the MSMED Act or Section 16 of the Arbitration Act. Further, the bench held that in case an award has been passed, then the proper recourse is to file objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act.
Case Title: International Avenue Vs Delhi Transport Corporation
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 561
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh has directed International Avenue to deposit Rs. 5 crores within one week considering the substantial amount due under the arbitral award. The bench held that despite providing multiple opportunities to the company, it failed to comply with the order. It held that this constituted contempt of court.
Title: MAXWELL PARTNERSHIP FIRM REGD v. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD AND ANR.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 562
The Delhi High Court has observed that effective participation of organisations which have a public character in pre-litigation mediation is essential.
Title: H v. THE UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 563
The Delhi High Court has refused to permit a 20 year old unmarried woman, preparing for NEET Examination, to medically terminate her ongoing pregnancy of 27 weeks, observing that the foetus was healthy and viable.
Title: SHRIKANT PRASAD v. GOVT OF N.C.T OF DELHI AND ORS
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 564
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation seeking to restrain the media houses from creating “pressure and airing sensational headlines” regarding Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal's resignation and imposition of President Rule in the national capital.
Case Title: SBI Cards And Payment Services Private Limited Vs Kony Inc. & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 565
The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh granted ex-parte ad-interim injunction to SBI Cards under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to ensure access to and operation of certain licensed software. The bench directed the Respondents from taking any action or steps, which would result in the disruption in the credit card services of SBI Cards. through the use of the licensed software.
Title: SANJAY RAGHUNATH PIPLANI AND ANR. v. NATIONAL BUILDINGS CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION DELHI AND ANR.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 566
The Delhi High Court has directed the National Buildings Construction Corporation (NBCC) to return entire amount of over Rs. 76 lakh deposited by a homebuyer in 2017 regarding a flat which was never handed over to him, observing that he had been left in complete lurch.
Delhi High Court Restrains Real Estate Company From Unauthorisedly Using Taj's Vivanta Trademark
Title: THE INDIAN HOTELS COMPANY LIMITED v. SHIVGYAN DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 567
The Delhi High Court has restrained a real estate company offering luxury flats and accommodations from unauthorisedly using “Vivanta” mark in a trademark infringement suit filed by The Indian Hotels Company which owns hospitality brand 'Taj'.
Difficulty In Collating Information No Ground To Deny Information Under RTI Act: Delhi High Court
Title: GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. v. MR PRABHJOT SINGH DHILLON
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 568
The Delhi High Court has recently ruled that difficulty in collating the information is not a ground to deny information under the Right to Information Act, 2005.
Title: Microsoft, Google v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 569
The Delhi High Court has asked Microsoft and Google to approach a single judge by filing review of its last year ruling directing them to automatically identify and remove “non-consensual intimate images” on the internet without insisting on specific URLs.
Title: SONU SONKAR v. THE LT GOVERNOR, DELHI & ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 570
The Delhi High Court has observed that the law in India as well as the Delhi Prison Rules do not permit grant of parole to a convict on the ground of maintaining conjugal relationships with a live-in partner, when he already has a legally wedded wife.
Title: SANJAY GOEL v. MAJESTIC BUILDCON PVT. LTD.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 571
The Delhi High Court has observed that an order of transferring a case to another court may mar the career of the judicial officer for life and thus, such a step must not ordinarily be resorted to.
Title: SANJAY KANSAL v. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 572
The Delhi High Court has observed that the evidence sought to be given at the instance of an accused who becomes an approver and is granted pardon in the scheduled or predicate offence, cannot be used for the purposes of money laundering proceedings under the PMLA.
Title: THE INDIAN HOTELS COMPANY LIMITED v. JOHN DOE AND OTHERS
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 573
The Delhi High Court has passed a John Doe order in favour of Indian Hotels Company, part of the TATA group of companies, by restraining various “unknown fraudulent websites” using its registered trademark “Ginger” unauthorisedly for hotel bookings.
Delhi High Court Quashes MOOWR Instructions Denying Benefit To Solar Power Generation Units
Case Title: Acme Heergarh Powertech Private Limited Versus CBIC
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 574
The Delhi High Court has held that the statutory scheme underlying the Manufacture and Other Operations in Warehouse Regulations, 2019 (MOOWR) cannot be construed as seeking to exclude solar power generation in terms of permissions granted under Section 65 of the Customs Act, 1962.
Case Title: Zenith Leisure Holidays Ltd. Vs Union Of India & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 575
In a recent ruling, the Delhi Court has upheld the decision of the Ministry of Railways to keep the empanelment of Zenith Leisure Holidays Ltd. which provides catering and back-end services to the Indian Railways in abeyance following an incident where the firm was found to have carried LPG cylinders on board trains despite directives against flame-based cooking in pantry cars.
Title: TULIR CHARITABLE TRUST v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 576
Exercising its suo moto revisional jurisdiction, the Delhi High Court registered a suo moto revision petition from a public interest litigation which challenged a trial court order discharging two men accused of circulating and storing child pornographic material.
Case Title: Telecommunications Consultants India Ltd Vs Govt Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 577
The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma held the dispute resolution clauses are considered sacrosanct and cannot be disregarded. Nonetheless, it held the clauses must be read in a pragmatic manner and not in a manner that frustrates the purpose.
Case Title: VI Exports India Private Limited Versus Union Of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 578
The Delhi High Court while dismissing the rice exporter's appeal, upheld the decision of the single bench holding that the exporter cannot be permitted to export 11,000 MT of banned non- basmati white rice, due to the non-fulfilment of the conditions entitling it to an exemption from the ban on export imposed by Notification bearing no. 20/2023 dated 20th July, 2023 issued by the Department of Commerce, Government of India.
Condition Of Pre-Deposit Duly Complied, Delhi High Court Restores Appeal On Board Of CESTAT
Case Title: Ankit Madan Versus Registrar, Customs, Excise And Service Tax Appellate Tribunal & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 579
The Delhi High Court has held that the appeal itself may be restored on the Board of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), bearing in mind the undisputed position that the condition of pre-deposit has been duly complied with.
Delhi High Court Stays Felling Of Trees In Central Ridge, Orders Removal Of Garbage
Title: ANJALI COLLEGE OF PHARMACY AND SCIENCE THROUGH ITS FOUNDER -CUM-CHAIRMAN DEVENDRA GUPTA v. DR. MONTU M. PATEL PRESIDENT PHARMACY COUNCIL OF INDIA & ANR.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 580
The Delhi High Court has directed that no further felling of trees or removal of shrubs and other bushes shall take place in the Central Ridge in the national capital, without the permission of the Court.
The court has also directed the Forest Department and other local authorities to ensure that no dumping of garbage or any other waste material is carried out in the Central Ridge.
Title: Shaheen Abdulla & Ors. v. Election Commission of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 581
The Delhi High Court rejected a plea seeking immediate action against Prime Minister Narendra Modi and other candidates for delivering allegedly “communally divisive speeches” in violation of the Model Code of Conduct amid the Lok Sabha polls.
Justice Sachin Datta rejected the plea observing that the same is wholly misconceived.
Case Title: Jasmine Kaur Chhabra v. UOI & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 582
The Delhi Government has informed the Delhi High Court that 143 separate public toilets have been constructed in the national capital for transgender persons.
The court is also informed that the construction of 223 public toilets for transgender persons is in process and the same is yet to start for 30 more toilets.
Show Cause Notice Not Adjudicated For Nearly 14 Years; Delhi High Court Issues Notice To Dept.
Case Title: M/S Durga Trading Company And Ors Versus The Additional Director General (Adjudication) And Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 583
A division bench of the Delhi High Court, comprising Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Ravinder Dudeja, has issued the notice to the department in a petition assailing the jurisdiction to adjudicate the Show Cause Notice, which has not been adjudicated for nearly 14 years.
The petitioner/assessee is a manufacturer of Pan Masala containing tobacco commonly known as Gutkha, commercially engaging under the brand name "Pukar.”
AO Can't Proceed With Assessment In Absence Of Section 127 Transfer Order: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Rajsheela Growth Fund (P) Ltd. Versus ITO
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 584
The Delhi High Court has held that the Assessing Officer cannot proceed with assessment in the absence of a transfer order under Section 127 of the Income Tax Act.
The bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav has observed that once the case of the assessee is centralized, then the transfer of the case of the assessee to another AO would not be permissible without a decentralization order or transfer order under Section 127 of the Income Tax Act, as contrary to such a position outside the underlying objective that the Act seeks to achieve by virtue of powers enshrined under Section 127.
Title: STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI v. UNIQUE IDENTIFICATION AUTHORITY OF INDIA, & ANR.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 585
The Delhi High Court has recently directed the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) to provide to the Delhi Police all information pertaining to a “forged Aadhar card”, recovered from a man accused of supplying fake currency notes, for verifying it with the Aadhar data bank.
Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri allowed Delhi Police's plea seeking verification of the forged Aadhar card with the database, after the details did not match with the accused when checked on the UIDAI website.
Title: SARVESH v. ALL INDIA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES & ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 586
The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi Government's Chief Secretary to ensure implementation of the recommendations given by a seven member Committee constituted by the court to streamline the process of availing free medical treatment under various government schemes in the hospitals in the national capital.
Delhi High Court Issues Directions To Maintain Hygiene In Dairies, Medical Care Of Cattle
Title: SUNAYANA SIBAL & ORS. v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 587
The Delhi High Court has recently issued a slew of directions for maintaining hygiene in dairies in the national capital, to ensure medical care of cattle kept therein and for use of spurious oxytocin.
A division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Ps Arora was prima facie not persuaded by the submission of the Delhi Government's Chief Secretary that the cattle in the dairies adjoining sanitary landfill sites in Delhi can be prevented from eating hazardous waste until 2025-26.
Title: BEIERSDORF AG v. HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LIMITED
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 588
The Delhi High Court has restrained Hindustan Unilever Limited from engaging in marketing or advertising activity of comparing its 'Ponds' products with 'Nivea' products, either expressly or by implication or association, through sale representatives in various malls in the national capital and Gurugram.
Title: CENTRE FOR POLICY RESEARCH v. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 14, DELHI & ANR.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 589
The Delhi High Court has recently directed the Assessing Officer (AO) to decide afresh the application moved by the Indian public policy think tank Centre for Policy Research (CPR) seeking a stay of the income tax demand for the year 2022-23.
A division bench comprising of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav set aside the Assessing Officer's order passed on May 03 disposing of CPR's application for stay of the demand, while requiring the think tank to deposit 20% of the outstanding demand as a pre-condition for granting protection.
Delhi High Court Reverses Acquittal, Holds Father Guilty Of Repeatedly Raping Minor Daughter
Title: State v. PDD and other connected matters
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 590
The Delhi High Court has reversed the acquittal of a man and held him guilty for repeatedly raping and sexually assaulting his minor daughter for around two years in 2011-13.
The man was acquitted by the trial court in June 2019. The FIR was registered on January 2013 on the basis of the victim's statement alleging that she was being assaulted by him for the last two years- 2011. The last incident of sexual assault was reported to be on January 04, 2013.
Case Title: Mercator Ltd. Vs Dredging Corporation Of India Ltd And Connected Matters
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 591
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Prateek Jalan held that the public policy argument while considering enforcement of foreign awards has to be construed narrowly and in consonance with international notions of public policy. The bench held that all violations of statute or supporting legislation do not satisfy this ground, and violations must be of fundamental policies considered shocking to the conscience of the Court.
Case Title: Bausch And Lomb India Private Limited Versus Assessment Unit, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 592
The Delhi High Court has deleted the addition for unexplained expenditure, which was based on the instruction issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC).
“Merely proceeding on the basis that CBIC is an apex body and therefore, information provided by it cannot be doubted, without even identifying or meaningfully analyzing such information, is wholly insufficient to proceed to make an addition,” the bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju observed.
Monetary Limit Of Rs. 1 Crore For Appeals To High Court; Delhi High Court Dismisses Dept's Appeal
Case Title: The Principal Commissioner Of Customs, ACC Imports New Delhi Versus M/S. Salasar Synthetics
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 593
The Delhi High Court has dismissed the challenging redemption fine of Rs. 40 lakhs, citing instructions issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC), which set the monetary limit of Rs. 1 crore for appeals to the high court.
Case Title: Tipping Mr Pink Private Limited Vs Tipping Mr Pink Private Limited
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 594
The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula granted an ex-parte interim injunction in favor of Tipping Mr Pink Private Limited to prevent Savera Eats from using the “Burger Singh” registered trademark. The bench held that despite the termination of the franchise agreement, Savera Eats continued to operate the franchise outlet under the Petitioner's registered trademark “Burger Singh”.
Case Title: Deepak Maurya Vs Saraswathi Supari Processing Unit & Ors
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 595
The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma held that the Court is not required to behave in a mechanical manner to send a party's dispute to the arbitral tribunal and must consider the fundamental issues, within the parameters outlined in Section 11(6-A) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Delhi High Court Rules In Favour Of Karim's In Trademark Lawsuit Against Karin's
Title: KARIM HOTELS PVT LTD & ANR v. NIZAMUDDIN & ANR
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 596
The Delhi High Court has recently ruled in favour of Karim Hotels in its trademark infringement suit against a restaurant operated under the name Karin's.
Justice Sanjeev Narula decreed the suit in favour of Karim Hotels Private Limited and Karim's Mughlai Foods, which was accorded a license by the former authorising it to use “KARIM'S” trademark for commercial exploitation in relation to restaurant services.
Case Title: Delhi Tourism And Transportation Development Corporation Vs M/S Satinder Mahajan
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 597
The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Prateek Jalan held that the seat of the arbitration proceedings is to be determined on the basis of connection with the arbitral proceedings, and not with the cause of action for the underlying disputes.
Case Title: Mercator Ltd. Vs Dredging Corporation Of India Ltd And Connected Matters
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 598
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Prateek Jalan held that enforcement of foreign awards should not be declined on grounds relating to the composition of the tribunal, which could have been raised before the Tribunal and before the seat Court, but were not so raised. It held that the judgment debtor did not object, even at the stage of appointment, on this ground.
Unexplained Expenditure Addition Merely Based On CBIC Instruction Not Sustainable: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Bausch And Lomb India Private Limited Versus Assessment Unit, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 599
The Delhi High Court has deleted the addition for unexplained expenditure, which was based on the instruction issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC).
Title: SANJEEV KUMAR v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 600
The Delhi High Court has initiated suo moto criminal contempt case against a lawyer who made personal remarks on judges and posted contemptuous comments in the chat box while appearing through virtual mode during proceedings.
“Petitioner appears to have taken a wrong end of law, aggrieved against adverse orders passed by the Judicial Officers of the District Courts as well as this Court and cannot be permitted to cross the red line, thereby making personal attack on the Judges which undermines the integrity of the Institution,” Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta said.
Case Title: Rachita Francis Xavier v Union of India & Ors
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 601
The Delhi High Court recently ordered the Central government to confer citizenship upon a 17-year-old girl who was born and raised in India to parents holding Overseas Citizens of India (OCI) status but were citizens of the United States at the time of her birth.
Title: JAIKISHAN KAKUBHAI SARAF ALIAS JACKIE SHROFF v. THE PEPPY STORE & ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 602
The Delhi High Court has recently restrained various entities from infringing the personality and publicity rights of Bollywood actor Jackie Shroff.
Justice Sanjeev Narula passed an interim injunction order in favour of the actor in his suit seeking protection of his personality rights.
Delhi High Court Dismisses Relaxo's Plea Against HRX's Use Of 'X' Mark In Trademark For Footwear
Case Title: Relaxo Footwears Limited v XS Brands Consultancy Private Limited & Ors
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 603
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a plea by leading footwear manufacturer Relaxo, which sought to prevent HRX from using the 'X' mark in its trademark for selling footwear.
Justice Anish Dayal, presiding over the case, denied the interim injunction application filed by Relaxo. He rejected Relaxo's claim that the 'X' used by HRX appeared deceptively similar to the 'X' used by Relaxo's Sparx brand of footwear.
Delhi High Court Orders ₹30 Lakh Compensation To Kin Of Three Deceased Manual Scavengers
Title: REKHA AND ORS v. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 604
The Delhi High Court has ordered compensation of Rs. 30 lakh each to the kin of three manual scavengers who died while cleaning a drain in 2017.
Justice Sachin Datta directed the city authorities to pay the amount to the families within eight weeks.
Delhi High Court Orders SpiceJet To Handover Leased Aircrafts With Engines To TWC Aviation
Title: TWC AVIATION CAPITAL LIMITED v. SPICEJET LIMITED
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 605
The Delhi High Court has recently ordered SpiceJet to handover two Boeing Aircrafts with engines to TWC Aviation over unpaid dues.
Delhi High Court Rejects PIL To Mandate Medical Professionals To Specify Risks Associated With Drugs
Title: JACOB VADAKKANCHERY v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 606
The Delhi High Court has rejected a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking to mandate all medical professionals practicing in the country to specify to a patient, along with the prescription, all kinds of possible risks and side effects associated with a drug or a pharmaceutical product being prescribed.
Delhi High Court Rejects Pleas Seeking Issuance Of Guidelines To Cap Airfares For Private Airlines
Title: AMIT SAHNI v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. and other connected matter
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 607
The Delhi High Court has dismissed public interest litigations (PILs) seeking the issuance of guidelines for putting a cap on airfares in order to prevent private airlines from charging arbitrary, irrational and exorbitant airfares for flights.
Title: We, the People of India v. Union of India and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 608
The Delhi High Court has waived Rs. 75,000 costs imposed on a law student who filed a PIL seeking release of Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal on “extra ordinary interim bail” in all the criminal cases registered by against him.
Title: MOUNTAIN VALLEY SPRINGS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED v. BABY FOREST AYURVEDA PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S LANDSMILL HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED) & ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 609
The Delhi High Court has dismissed the interim injunction plea filed by skincare and cosmetics brand Forest Essentials seeking to restrain another brand from using the marks “Baby Forest” and “Baby Forest- Soham of Ayurveda” while selling baby care products.
Title: BILAL AHMAD MIR ALIAS BILAL MIR ALIAS BILLA v. NATIONAL INVESTIGATING AGENCY NEW DELHI and other connected matters
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 610
Citing Russian novelist Fyodor Dostoyevsky's quote from the book “Crime and Punishment”, the Delhi High Court has modified and reduced the sentence awarded to five members of terror organisation Jaish-e-Mohammed(JeM) from life imprisonment to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 121A of Indian Penal Code.
Delhi High Court Denies Bail To Accused In NSCN (IM) Terror Funding Case
Case Title: Masasasong Ao Vs National Iinvestigation Agency
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 611
The Delhi High Court has upheld the denial of bail to Masasosang Ao, the second accused in the terror funding case related to Naga insurgent group National Socialist Council of Nagaland-Isak Muivah (NSCN (IM)).
Case Title: Ajay Singh and Anr vs Kal Airways Private Limited & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 612
The Delhi High Court division bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Ravinder Dudeja set aside a Single-judge decision that upheld an arbitral tribunal's decision requiring the cash-strapped SpiceJet and its chairman, Ajay Singh, to refund ₹ 270 crore plus interest to media baron Kalanithi Maran and his company, KAL Airways.
Case Title: PT Bukaka Teknik Utama Versus Commissioner Of Income Tax (IT), Delhi - 2
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 613
The Delhi High Court has held that the assessee can't be obstructed from availing of the benefits of the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020 (DTVSV Act) even where the time limit for an appeal has not expired.
Title: UNIVERSAL CITY STUDIOS PRODUCTIONS LLLP & ORS. v. MOVIES123.LA & ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 614
The Delhi High Court has recently granted a dynamic+ injunction in favour of Netflix, Universal City Studios, Disney and various other global entertainment companies to protect their copyrighted works in a suit filed against 26 rogue websites.
Title: Manish Sisodia v. ED, CBI
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 615
The Delhi High Court has denied bail to Former Deputy Chief Minister and Aam Aadmi Party leader Manish Sisodia in the money laundering and corruption cases related to the alleged liquor policy scam.
Case Title: Dollar Gulati Vs PCIT and Ors
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 616
The Delhi High Court refuses to interfere with the order of the AO passed u/s 127 where the case of the Taxpayer was centralized and transferred from Income-tax Officer (ITO), Delhi to Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (DCIT), Central Circle, Haryana.
Additions U/s 69C Based Merely On CBIC Information Can't Be Sustained: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Bausch And Lomb India Private Limited Vs Assessment Unit
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 617
The Delhi High Court sets aside the assessment order and remits the matter to AO on the ground that the additions of Rs.70.10 Cr. made under Section 69C as unexplained expenditure based merely on information received from Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs (CBIC) is unsustainable.
Title: AMAR SINGH BHATIA & ANR. v. SIR GANGA RAM HOSPITAL & ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 618
The Delhi High Court has ordered that the donor or recipient be informed via WhatsApp or email about the deficiencies in the documentation pertaining to organ transplantation process.
Title: CHHAVI v. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 619
The Delhi High Court has observed that the Centenary Chance exams offered by the Delhi University, allowing ex-students a second chance to repeat the papers which they are yet to clear and earn degrees, are a not a matter of right.
Case Title: Vishal Dhiren Shah Vs Union Of India, Through Ministry Of Corporate Affairs & Anr. And Connected Matters
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 620
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Dharmesh Sharma dismissed an interim application filed against the decision of the National Financial Reporting Authority which imposed penalties on CAs and audit firm for lapses in the audit of Reliance Capital Limited for the FY 2018-19.
Delhi High Court Permits Former BharatPe MD Ashneer Grover, Wife To Travel Abroad
Title: Ashneer Grover v. Union of India & Ors. and other connected matter
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 621
The Delhi High Court has allowed Former BharatPe Managing Director Ashneer Grover and his wife Madhuri Jain Grover to travel abroad to the United States.
Delhi High Court Quashes Appointment Of Prof. Eqbal Hussain As Jamia Pro-Vice Chancellor
Title: MD SHAMI AHMAD ANSARI & ANR v. JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA & ORS and other connected matters
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 622
The Delhi High Court has quashed the appointment of Prof. Eqbal Hussain as the Pro Vice Chancellor and consequently as the Officiating Vice Chancellor of Jamia Millia Islamia Office.
Title: SUDHA PRASAD v. UDAY PAL SINGH
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 623
The Delhi High Court has recently held a man guilty of criminal contempt of court for posting a video on social media defaming the judges and claiming that they were doing “illegal acts.”
Title: COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. RANJEET SINGH MALHOTRA
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 624
While discharging a lawyer who was suffering from “acute behavioural issues” in a suo moto criminal contempt case, the Delhi High Court has asked the Bar Council of Delhi to assess whether he is fit to continue in the legal profession.
Delhi High Court Issues Directions For Sale Of Used And Refurbished Hard Disk Drives
Case Title: Seagate Technology LLC v Daichi International & connected matters
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 625
The Delhi High Court has recently issued a set of directions for the sale of used and refurbished hard disk drives (HDDs).
Case Name : Kishore Kumar Makwana vs Union Of India & Anr
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 627
A division bench of the Delhi High Court comprising of Justice Rekha Palli and Justice Saurabh Banerjee while deciding a writ petition, in case of Kishore Kumar Makwana vs Union Of India & Anr held that employee reverted from an ad hoc promotion can have their pay reduced, but terminal benefits should reflect higher salary received during long period of ad hoc service.
Title: RAJASTHAN EQUESTRAIN ASSOCIATION v. EQUESTRIAN FEDERATION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 628
The Delhi High Court has appointed its retired judge, Justice Najmi Waziri, as the Chairperson of ad-hoc Administrative Committee constituted to supervise the administration of the Equestrian Federation of India (EFI).
Title: VASU SACHDEVA v. BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA AND ORS
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 629
The Delhi High Court has refused to direct the Bar Council of India (BCI) to treat the degree of a law graduate from the University of Hertfordshire in the United Kingdom as equivalent to an undergraduate course in India.
Case Title: Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax -15 Versus Shiv Kumar Nayyar
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 630
The Delhi High Court has held that a grant of approval under Section 153D of the Income Tax Act, 1961, cannot be merely a ritualistic formality or rubber stamping by the authority; rather, it must reflect an appropriate application of mind.
Case Title: Akshay Choudhary Vs Union Of India Ministry Of Home Affairs & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 631
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Ravinder Dudeja has directed a re-examination of a CAPF candidate who was declared unfit even after tattoo removal surgery. It held that the Review Medical Board should not have examined the candidate immediately after a few days of surgery and should have given sufficient time to him to ensure the healing of the scar.
Case Title: Delhivery Limited Vs. Far Left Retail Private Limited
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 632
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna held that objection regarding the insufficiency of service is considered to be on merits and therefore should be raised before the Arbitrator.
Case Title: New Delhi Television Limited Versus Dispute Resolution Panel 2 & Anr
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 633
The Delhi High Court has held that once the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) had proceeded to pass the order of October 17, 2017, all that the AO was obliged to do was pass an assessment order in accordance with the procedure prescribed in Section 92CA(4) of the Income Tax Act.
Title: VLS FINANCE LTD v. STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ORS
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 634
The Delhi High Court has observed that the right to be heard given to a victim or complainant in a criminal case cannot be uplifted to a right to be impleaded in a criminal revision.
Title: CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGTATION v. R. VASUDEVAN & ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 635
The Delhi High Court has observed that there cannot be piecemeal disclosure of material on which the prosecution seeks to base its case.
Case Title: Shantanu Prakash Vs State Bank Of India & Ors
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 636
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Mini Pushkarna held that the concerned party must be provided with all requisite documents that form the basis of Show Cause Notices (SCNs) by the banks. It held that this enables the party to submit a proper reply and address all allegations effectively. Without access to these underlying documents, the procedure of issuing an SCN and filing a response would be rendered meaningless.
Winding Up Proceedings On Nascent Stage , To Be Transferred To NCLT: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Arabian Oilfield Suppliers & Services Vs Greka Drilling (India) Limited
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 637
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Dharmesh Sharma held that winding up proceedings pending before High Courts, which are at a nascent stage and have not progressed to an advanced stage, ought to be transferred to the NCLT.
Title: MUNNA SINGH & ANR. v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 638
The Delhi High Court has called for the sensitization of all the judges of trial courts in the national capital to pronounce their judgments on conviction only when the order is ready and immediately provide a copy to the accused who has to be taken into custody.
Justice Navin Chawla directed that the order be circulated to the Principal District and Sessions judges of all the District Courts in Delhi.
Delhi High Court Restricts Ramleela Function Bookings In DDA Grounds Till Fresh SOP Is Published
Title: SHREE HANUMANT DHARMIK RAMLEELA COMMITTEE REGD & ANR. v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 639
The Delhi High Court has barred any further offline or online bookings of Ramleela functions in the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) grounds till a new SOP aur guidelines for booking is published by the authority.
Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju directed the DDA to formulate comprehensive SOPs or guidelines for booking of Ramleela sites within five weeks' and no later than June 25.
Title: SHRIKANT PRASAD v. GOVT OF N.C.T OF DELHI AND ORS
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 640
The Delhi High Court has waived Rs. 1 lakh costs imposed on a lawyer who filed public interest litigation to restrain the media houses from creating “pressure and airing sensational headlines” regarding Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal's resignation and imposition of President Rule in the national capital.
A division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet PS Arora directed the petitioner, Shrikant Prasad, to do community service in accordance with the directions of the DSLSA.
Title: SpiceJet v. TWC Aviation
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 641
The Delhi High Court has refused to interfere with a single judge's order directing airline SpiceJet to handover two Boeing Aircrafts with engines to TWC Aviation over unpaid dues.
A division bench comprising of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Amit Bansal however directed SpiceJet to return the aircrafts and engines to the lessor by June 17.
Title: BHAVREEN KANDHARI v. SHRI C. D. SINGH AND ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 642
The Delhi High Court has appointed Delhi Government's Chief Secretary as the nodal authority to draft the procedure for preventing felling or transplantation of trees in the North Campus, Delhi University for its expansion or development of infrastructure.
Justice Jasmeet Singh asked the Chief Secretary to would call all the stakeholders, including the Delhi Urban Art Commission (DUAC), Amici Curiae (Advocates Aditya N. Prasad, Gautam Narayan and Prabhsahay Kaur), the municipal authorities and any other agency necessary in his opinion.
Title: YAMIN ALI v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 643
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a plea challenging the appointment of Administrator of Delhi Waqf Board with costs of Rs. 10,000.
Justice Subramonium Prasad said that the plea was an absolute abuse of the process of law without giving any valid reasons as to why the appointment should be quashed.
Title: REKHA OBEROI v. AMIT OBEROI
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 644
The Delhi High Court has recently ruled that Section 15(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, unfortunately, works against the widow of a pre-deceased son, while it is intended to benefit another woman being a deceased woman.
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna said that the provision, which provides general rules of succession of property of a female Hindu dying intestate, is an anomaly in the legislation which needs rectification.
Title: ABOOBACKER E. v. National Investigation Agency
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 645
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday dismissed the plea moved by E Abubacker, former chairman of Popular Front of India (PFI), seeking bail in the UAPA case being probed by the National Investigation Agency.
A division bench comprising Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Manoj Jain dismissed the appeal moved by Abubacker who sought bail on the merits as well as medical grounds.
Title: ED v. Ajay S Mittal
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 646
The Delhi High Court has set aside a trial court order transferring Bhushan Steel money laundering case from one judge to another, after one of the accused alleged that the judge passed a comment expressing "ED matters me kaun si bail hoti hai?”
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said that the alleged comment did not reflect any apprehension of bias against the accused or something in favour of the prosecuting agency.
Forums Under Senior Citizens Act Can't Decide Question Of Property Title: Delhi High Court
Title: MANJU TOKAS & ANR v. GNCT OF DELHI THROUGH DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER & ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 647
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the forums under the Senior Citizens Act cannot decide question of title of properties.
“A reading of the Act makes it clear that the forum under the Act do not have the jurisdiction to decide the title of the property and the purpose of the Act is maintenance of the Senior Citizen and to ensure their welfare. The question of title, therefore, cannot be decided by forums under the Senior Citizens Act,” Justice Subramonium Prasad said.
Delhi High Court Grants Statutory Bail To Sharjeel Imam In Sedition Case
Title: Sharjeel Imam v. State
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 648
The Delhi High Court has granted statutory bail to Sharjeel Imam in a UAPA and sedition case relating to the alleged inflammatory speeches made by him in Aligarh Muslim University and Jamia area in the national capital against the Citizenship Amendment Act.
A division bench comprising Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Manoj Jain allowed Imam's bail plea. He had challenged the trial court order denying him statutory bail in the case.
Title: PRACHEEN SHIV MANDIR AVAM AKHADA SAMITI v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AND ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 649
The Delhi High Court has rejected a plea against the action of Delhi Development Authority (DDA) demolishing the Pracheen Shiv Mandir situated near city's Geeta Colony and located near Yamuna Flood Plains.
Justice Dharmesh Sharma observed that Pracheen Shiv Mandir Avam Akhada Samiti, which filed the plea, miserably failed to demonstrate any legal rights existing with it so as to continue to use and occupy the civic property for running the temple services.
Title: CAPTAIN DEEPAK KUMAR v. ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 650
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a plea seeking disqualification of Prime Minister Narendra Modi from contesting the 2024 general elections.
Justice Sachin Datta rejected the plea filed by Captain Deepak Kumar alleging that Modi and his accomplices attempted to destabilize the national security by planning a fatal crash of an Air India flight in 2018 where he was pilot. Kumar also said Modi "made a false Oath or affirmation which otherwise must be made after the nomination paper has been submitted to RO."
Case Title: Dr. Satendra Singh Vas Union Of India & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 651
The Delhi High Court has directed the Indian Nursing Council (INC) to address a representation challenging Clause 8 of the 'Admission Terms and Conditions' under the Revised Regulations and Curriculum for B.Sc. (Nursing Program) Regulations, 2020.
The court has ordered that the current writ petition be treated as a formal representation to INC, which must decide on the matter in accordance with the law, preferably within four weeks.
Case Title: Purvanchal Hathkargha Sahakari Sangh Ltd Vs All India Handloom Fabrics Society And Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 652
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma held that except power conferred to the Central Registrar under Section 84 of the Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002 for appointment of an Arbitrator, the other provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 shall remain in operation. It held that the notice as required under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 would be a pre-requisite even for initiation of proceedings under Section 84 of the Multi State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002.
Case Title: Extramarks Education India Pvt. Ltd Vs Saraswati Shishu Mandir
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 653
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh held that that the termination of an arbitrator's mandate does not equate to the termination of the arbitral proceedings. Instead, it allows for the appointment of a substitute arbitrator to ensure the continuation of the proceedings.
Case Title: M/S Power Mech Projects Ltd Vs M/S Doosan Power Systems India Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 654
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh held the court is fully empowered to extend the mandate, even after the expiry of the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal under Section 29A(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Title: CA RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA v. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY GENERAL
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 655
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a plea seeking details about the reason for recommendation for High Court judges appointment remitted by Collegium of the Supreme Court of India to the High Court Collegium.
Justice Subramonium Prasad rejected the plea moved by CA Rakesh Kumar Gupta and imposed Rs. 25,000 costs on him to be deposited with the Armed Forces Battle Casualties Welfare Fund.
Case Title: Abhimanyu Through Special Power Of Attorney Holder Vs Parmesh Construction Co. Ltd
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 656
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma held that where the arbitration seat is fixed, only such court shall have exclusive jurisdiction. It held that the cause of action arose at Noida, the agreement was executed at Noida, and the suit property is also situated at Noida. Therefore, the courts in Noida have jurisdiction over the appointment of an arbitrator.
Bank Can't Open LOC As An Arm Twisting Tactic To Recover Debt: Delhi High Court
Title: RAJESH KUMAR MEHTA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 657
The Delhi High Court has recently observed that a Bank cannot open a Lookout Circular (LOC) as an arm-twisting tactic to recover debt from an individual.
“This Court is of the opinion that after resorting to all the remedies available in law, the Bank cannot open a Lookout Circular as an arm-twisting tactic to recover debt from a person who is otherwise unable to pay more so when there are no allegations that he was engaged in any fraud or in any siphoning off or defalcation of the amounts given as loan,” Justice Subramonium Prasad said.
Case Title: M/S Blooming Orchid Vs Fp Life Education Foundation
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 658
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna held the period during which the parties were bona fide negotiating towards an amicable settlement may be excluded for the purpose of computing the period of limitation for reference to Arbitration under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Title: DELHI TAMIL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION v. DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION AND ORS
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 659
The Delhi High Court has ruled that aided minority institutions have an absolute right to appoint the Principals, teachers and other staff in the educational institutions run by them.
“The grant of aid, by the State, to the minority institution, makes no substantial difference to this legal position. At the highest, the State can regulate the proper utilization of the aid which it grants. It cannot subjugate the minority educational institution to its dictates in the matter of appointment of teachers, or Principals, on the pretext that it has granted aid to the institution,” Justice C Hari Shankar said.
Case Title: Communication Component Antenna Inc v. Mobi Antenna Technologies
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 660
The Delhi High Court has awarded ₹217 crore in lost profits damages to Communication Component Antenna Inc (CCAI) in a patent infringement case against Mobi Antenna Technologies.
Title: SANSER PAL SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 661
The Delhi High Court has refused to entertain a public interest litigation (PIL) to stop the media from disclosing the name of AAP Rajya Sabha MP Swati Maliwal while reporting the assault case filed by her, along with contents of the FIR.
Frame Rules To Levy Charges On Those Encroaching On Public Land: Delhi High Court To DDA, MCD
Title: KAMLESH JAIN v. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE & ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 662
The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) and Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) to devise a mechanism or frame rules to levy charges on those encroaching upon public land.
Delhi High Court Quashes Forgery Case Filed by Anchor Health Against Colgate-Palmolive
Case Title: Colgate Palmolive Company & Ors v State of NCT & Anr & Connected matters
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 663
The Delhi High Court has quashed a forgery case filed by Anchor Health and Beauty Care Pvt. Ltd. against Colgate-Palmolive Company and its directors.
The case, involving allegations of forgery related to trademark registration documents, was reserved on February 28, 2024, and dismissed by Justice Amit Sharma on May 28, 2024.
Case Title: Jaipuria Edutech Foundation vs. Shyamlalbabu Educational Trust
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 664
The Delhi High Court restrained the Defendant and all those acting for or / and on their behalf, from using plaintiffs' trademarks in respect of 'Jaipuria International Schools', 'Seth MR. Jaipuria School', as well as the device mark which is deceptively similar to plaintiffs' marks in respect of school or any other educational services.
Case Title: Sanjay Khatri vs. State of NCT of Delhi
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 665
Noticing that the parents of the victim have a history of matrimonial discord and they have filed multiple complaints against each other, the Delhi High Court held that age of minor victim vis-à-vis age of the accused, the family relationship between the victim and the accused and the chances of the accused threatening the victim, must be considered while deciding application in relation to offences under POCSO Act.
Title: MAHANT SHRI NAGA BABA BHOLA GIRI THROUGH HIS SUCCESSOR AVINASH GIRI v. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE DISTRICT CENTRAL AND ORS
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 666
The Delhi High Court has observed that if every Sadhu, Guru or Baba is allowed to build a shrine or samadhi on a public land and use it for personal gains, it would lead to disastrous consequences.
Case Title: The Commissioner Of Income Tax-International Taxation-3 Versus The Bank Of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 667
The Delhi High Court has held that interest received by the Indian PE on deposits maintained with the Head Office/Overseas Branch is not taxable in India.
Case Name: Revd. John H. Caleb v. Diocese of Delhi-CNI and Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 668
A single bench of Delhi High Court comprising of Justice Dharmesh Sharmawhile deciding a civil revision petition in the case of Revd. John H. Caleb v. Diocese of Delhi-CNI and Ors, has held that a personal right of action, arising due to holding of a non-hereditary office, dies with the death of the person concerned and not transferable or heritable.
Case Title: Neeraj Sharma v. Union of India & Ors. and other connected matters
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 669
Taking judicial notice of the highest ever temperature recorded at 52.3 degrees Celsius in the national capital, the Delhi High Court has said that the city may be only a barren desert if the present generation continues an apathetic view on deforestation.
Central Council Of Homoeopathy Falls Within Definition Of “Industry” Under ID Act: Delhi High Court
Case Name- Central Council of Homoeopathy vs Vijay Singh
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 670
A single judge bench of the Delhi High Court comprising of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh in the case of Central Council of Homoeopathy vs Vijay Singh has held that the Central Council of Homoeopathy falls within definition of “Industry” under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
Case Title: Progress Rail Locomotive Inc. (Formerly Electro Motive Diesel Inc.) Versus Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 671
The Delhi High Court, while quashing the reassessment proceedings initiated by the income tax department against the Caterpillar Group, held that once the issue of arm's length remuneration was settled by the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO), the question of ascertaining the existence of a permanent establishment (PE) was academic.
Case Title: M/S Twenty-Four Secure Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Competent Automobiles Company Limited
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 672
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna rejected a contention that the court lacked the authority to appoint a sole arbitrator, even though the arbitration agreement specified a three-member tribunal.
Case Title: Network 18 Media and Investments Limited & Ors v WWW.BrawlersFightClub.Com & Ors
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 673
The Delhi High Court has directed the blocking of rogue websites disseminating false information about an interview between Reliance Industries Director Anant Ambani and TV18 journalist Anand Narasimhan.
Justice Sanjeev Narula, presiding over the case, ordered Meta and X to remove the related Facebook posts and tweets and to provide details of the users who made these posts within four weeks.
Case Title: Sanjeev Goyal v. Union of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 674
The Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of Section 31 of the Finance Act, 2017. This section amended the Income Tax Act, 1961 (ITA) by adding sub-section (3A) to Section 71. The petition was filed by a government employee who claimed to have constructed a house in 2014, incurring an expenditure of Rs. 1.35 crore.
Case Title: M/S Divyam Real Estate Pvt Ltd Vs M/S M2k Entertainment Pvt Ltd
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 675
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani held that where an arbitrator has rendered no clear findings on a contentious issue and the conclusions drawn by an arbitrator are in disregard of the evidence on record, the award is liable to be set aside, as being perverse and patently illegal.
Case Title: M/S Space 4 Business Solution Pvt Ltd Vs The Divisional Commissioner Principal Secretary And Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 676
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna held that awarding interest rate is the discretion of the arbitrator and the same cannot be claimed by a party as a matter of right.
Principle Of No Work No Pay Not Applicable If Order Of Termination Illegal: Delhi High Court
Case Name- Manisha Sharma Vs Vidya Bhawan Girls Senior Secondary School & Anr
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 677
A single judge bench of the Delhi High Court comprising of Justice Tushar Rao Gedela in the case of Manisha Sharma Vs Vidya Bhawan Girls Senior Secondary School & Anr has held that an employee is entitled to backwages if order of termination was illegal and the principle of no work no pay is not applicable in such cases.
Case Title: M/S Kings Chariot Vs Mr. Tarun Wadhwa
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 678
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna held that where no seat of arbitration is specified in the arbitration agreement, the jurisdiction of the court shall be determined in accordance with Section 16 to Section 20 of C.P.C.
Case Title: Govt Of Nct Of Delhi Vs M/S Dsc Limited
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 679
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna held that the question of determination of whether indeed, there was a delay on the part of the Contractor is not an excepted matter and it is only the quantum of damages which is non-arbitrable.
Case Title: Yc Electric Vehicles Vs Saksham Trading Company
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 680
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Anish Dayal held that restrained Saksham Trading Company from using 'Yatra', 'YS', and any other marks resembling or deceptively similar to the YC Electric Vehicles marks 'Yatri' and 'YC' in E-Rickshaws, E-Vehicles, parts, accessories, and related goods.
Case Title: Mohammad Inamul Haq vs. the University Of Delhi & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 681
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Tushar Rao Gedela held that the wait-listed candidate will not have any right whatsoever much less the right of consideration. Further, the bench held that once the final select list of candidates has been offered an appointment to the post and concluded by such incumbents accepting the said offer and occupying the said post, the candidate cannot be permitted to challenge it after a passage of more than a year.
Title: SADDAM ALI v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 682
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) challenging the appointment of Dr. Subhransu Sekhar Acharya, the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of National Small Industries Development Corporation Limited (NSIDC).
Grant Of Statutory Bail Not Interlocutory Order But Final Order: Delhi High Court
Title: AMARJEET SINGH DHILLON v. STATE NCT OF DELHI
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 683
The Delhi High Court has recently observed that the grant of statutory bail is not an interlocutory order but a final order.
“As far as the maintainability of the Revision Petition is concerned, the grant of Statutory Bail cannot be considered as an Interlocutory Order. It is a final order releasing the Applicant on Bail as the investigation could not be completed and the final report could not be filed within the period of 60/90 days by the prosecution,” Justice Navin Chawla observed.
Case Title: Sundaresh Bhat Vs Insolvency And Bankruptcy Board Of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 684
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad held that official liquidators must adhere to ethical principles and demonstrate an unwavering commitment to fairness to discharge their duties under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.
Liquor Policy: Delhi High Court Denies Bail To Businessman Amandeep Singh Dhall
Title: AMANDEEP SINGH DHALL v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 685
The Delhi High Court has denied bail to businessman and director of Brindco Sales Private Limited, Amandeep Singh Dhall, in the corruption case connected to the alleged excise policy scam case.
Title: UNION OF INDIA THROUGH MOSPI v. RAM GOPAL DIXIT
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 686
The Delhi High Court has recently observed that the Central Information Commission (CIC) has no jurisdiction to comment upon utilization of funds by the Members of Parliament under the Members of Parliament Local Area Development Scheme (MPLADS).
Case Title: M/S Kld Creation Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd Vs National Highways And Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 687
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Amit Bansal held that the role of the court is limited to verifying the existence of a valid arbitration agreement. The bench held that once the court confirms that the arbitration agreement exists, it should refrain from delving into other issues, which are to be decided by the arbitral tribunal.
Title: AAM AADMI PARTY v. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 688
The Delhi High Court has directed the Central Government to decide within six weeks Aam Aadmi Party's request for temporary accommodation till a land is allotted to it for construction of permanent office space in the national capital.
Title: YUGANSH MITTAL v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 689
The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi Government to decide within four weeks a representation to frame basic norms on fire safety and sprinklers that could be implemented by smaller hospitals and nursing homes in the national capital.
Title: DOMINOS IP HOLDER LLC & ANR. v. M/S MG FOODS & ANR.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 690
The Delhi High Court has recently restrained a Punjab based food chain “Donito's” from using the trademark of Domino's for selling pizzas and burgers.
Justice Anish Dayal passed an ex-parte ad interim injunction in favour of Domino's pizza group of companies and directed Donito's to take down all references to its device marks in respect of Pizzas and Burgers from its domain www.donito's.in.
Case Title: Jagdish Tyres Pvt. Ltd. Vs Indag Rubber Limited
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 691
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh has held that a party is not permitted to challenge a procedural order passed by an arbitrator under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Case Title: Ms. Sarika Chaturvedi Vs Agarwal Auto Traders & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 692
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh imposed costs of Rs.50,000/- on a party for unnecessarily challenging and questioning the mandate of the arbitrator. The bench held that the party's intent was to create a stale mate. It held that repeated interventions of the court in arbitral proceedings are to be avoided and parties cannot force the arbitrators to recuse/withdraw.
Case Title: Telecommunication Consultants India Ltd (Tcil) Vs Ngbps Ltd
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 693
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju held that a general explanation of intra-departmental analysis and discussions doesn't constitute as valid and credible explanation for condonation of delay in filing an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Case Name- Delhi Transport Corporation Vs Ram Avatar Sharma
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 694
A single judge bench of the Delhi High Court comprising of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh in the case of Delhi Transport Corporation Vs Ram Avatar Sharma has held that a person not being allowed to be represented by a defence assistant & non-enclosure of past record of the person in chargesheet established that an enquiry proceedings is conducted in violation of principles of natural justice.
Case Title: GE Capital Us Holdings Inc Versus Dy Commissioner Of Income Tax (International Taxation)
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 696
The Delhi High Court, while quashing the penalty, has held that both under-reporting and misreporting are viewed as separate and distinct misdemeanours.
The bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav has observed that, as per Section 270A(1), a person would be liable to be considered to have under-reported their income if the contingencies spoken of in clauses (a) to (g) of Section 270A(2) were attracted. In terms of Section 270A(3), the under-reported income is liable to be computed in accordance with the prescribed stipulations.
Case Title: Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions) Versus M/S Jamnalal Bajaj Foundation
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 697
The Delhi High Court has held that exemption is allowable on donations made by one charitable trust to other charitable institutions for a temporary period.
Title: ARUN RAMCHANDRAN PILLAI v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 698
The Delhi High Court has upheld a trial court order rejecting the application moved by Hyderabad businessman Arun Ramchandra Pillai, accused in the alleged excise policy scam, against commencement of arguments on charge till conclusion of probe by Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
Title: KULDEEP SINGH SENGAR v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 699
The Delhi High Court has rejected a plea moved by expelled BJP leader Kuldeep Singh Sengar seeking suspension of his 10 years of sentence in the custodial death of Unnao rape victim's father.
Case Title: Flowmore Limited Versus Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle 28, New Delhi & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 700
The Delhi High Court has held that the initiation of Section 153C of the Income Tax Act assessment proceedings falling beyond the maximum 10-year block period is unsustainable.
Title: MOHSIN IBRAHIM SAYYED v. NIA
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 701
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a plea moved by a convict seeking concurrent running of his jail terms in two UAPA cases, observing that the offences committed by him did not form part of the same transaction.
Title: SRI SALEK CHAND JAIN v. CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF NCT, DELHI & ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 702
The Delhi High Court has recently directed Delhi Government's Chief Secretary to decide within 12 weeks a plea to conduct a door to door survey to collect the data about total number of senior citizens in the national capital.
Case Name- Group 4 Securities Guarding Ltd Vs Secretary, Labour, Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 703
A single judge bench of the Delhi High Court comprising of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh in the case of Group 4 Securities Guarding Ltd Vs Secretary, Labour, Govt. of NCT of Delhi has held that definition of wages under Minimum Wages Act, 1948 cannot be used to calculate bonus under Payment of Bonus Act, 1965.
Case Title: Glowsun Powergen Private Limited Vs Hammond Power Solutions Private Limited
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 704
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma held that Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 does not preclude the consideration of applications for extension of the arbitrator's mandate filed after the expiration of the mandate.
Case: Maya and Ors. v. Union of Indian and Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 705
A single judge bench of the Delhi High Court comprising of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh while deciding a writ petition in the case of Maya and Ors. v. Union of Indian and Ors. has held that the Court is to refrain from intervening in cases where there is an effective alternate remedy, unless there exist compelling reasons to do so.
Case Title: HMD Mobile India Private Limited vs Mr Rajan Aggarwal and Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 706
The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Anish Dayal held that copyright protection cannot be provided to vague and abstract subjects, merely expressing a generic idea. The bench invalidated the registration of phrases like 'Coming Soon' and generic titles like 'Advertisement', which are commonly available in the public domain.
Case Title: Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax 1 Versus M/S Care Health Insurance Limited
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 707
The Delhi High Court has held that the deduction under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act is allowable on unsettled claims as well as Incurred But Not Reported (IBNR), which would amount to contingent liabilities.
Delhi High Court Rules In Favour Of Journalist Rajat Sharma, Restrains Use Of 'Baap Ki Adalat'
Title: INDEPENDENT NEWS SERVICE PRIVATE LTD & ANR. v. RAVINDRA KUMAR CHOUDHARY & ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 708
Ruling in favour of senior journalist Rajat Sharma, the Delhi High Court recently restrained an individual from using India TV logo and “Baap Ki Adalat” trademark in the content posted by him on social media.
Justice Anish Dayal also restrained the man, Ravindra Kumar Choudhary, from using the photograph, video and name of Sharma, either as a trademark or logo in the social media posts, audio video content or any services which may result in violation of the journalist's personality rights.
Title: AMIT KATYAL v. DIRECTORATE OFENFORCEMENT GOVERNMENT OFINDIA
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 709
The Delhi High Court has constituted a medical board of AIIMS to evaluate the condition of RJD chief Lalu Prasad Yadav's close aide Amit Katyal, who is in custody in a money laundering case related to the alleged land-for-jobs scam case.
Justice Vikas Mahajan was dealing with Katyal's plea seeking his release on humanitarian and medical grounds.
Case Title: Nirmaan Malhotra vs. Tushita Kaul
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 710
The Delhi High Court has refused to rely on the photographs produced by a man to show that his wife has been living in adultery and to claim that she is not entitled to receive maintenance from him under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Rajeev Shakdher and Justice Amit Bansal observed that in this era of "deepfakes", it is necessary that the alleged photographs are proved by way of evidence before the family court dealing with the matrimonial dispute.
Case Title: Tata Projects Ltd. Vs Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 711
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju held that non-disclosure of the petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in another matter cannot be termed as a case of egregious fraud, which would disentitle a party from pursuing its petition under Section 9.
Case Title: Mahesh Gupta vs. Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 712
The Delhi High Court has confirmed an order of the Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs refusing patent registration to "Portable Vehicle Management System" which claimed novel features like Real-time Monitoring of vehicle & Assistance, Anomaly Detection, Alert Generation, Detection and Masking of Faces, Portability, etc.
Case Title: Pitambar Solvex Pvt Ltd And Anr. Vs Manju Sharma And Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 713
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna held that mere initiation of the arbitration proceedings does not bar the corporate debtor from pursuing his other remedies including those under the Insolvency Bankruptcy Code.
Case Title: Indian Spinal Injuries Centre Vs M/S Galaxy India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 714
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma has held that merely sending notice of arbitration under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is not sufficient. It held that receipt of the notice is the prerequisite for the commencement of arbitration proceedings.
Case Title: M/S Talbros Sealing Materials Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Slach Hydratecs Equipments Pvt. Ltd
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 715
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh has held that the arbitration clause is not invalidated merely on the ground that the number of arbitrators, as per the arbitration clause, was an even number and therefore, was in contravention of Section 10 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Title: RONAK KHATRI & ORS. v. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ORS
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 716
The Delhi High Court has directed that a meeting be convened to assess drinking water and other infrastructural facilities in Delhi University's Faculty of Law, including availability of Wi-Fi in the campus.
While dealing with a plea moved by three students alleging lack of facilities in the varsity, a vacation bench comprising of Justice Amit Sharma impleaded the Bar Council of India and Dean Student's Welfare of Delhi University in the matter.
Case Title: Continuum Power Trading (Tn) Private Limited Vs Solar Energy Corporation Of India Limited
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 717
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma has held that the clause of 'amicable resolution' in the arbitration agreement cannot be read as preventing the parties from invoking the arbitration if the parties have sincerely tried to resolve the disputes amicably. It held that literal compliance with such provisions may be counter-protective.
Delhi High Court Orders To Vacate In One Month Mosque, Madarsa At Hazrat Nizamuddin For Demolition
Title: FAIZYAB MASJID AND MADARSA v. RELIGIOUS COMMITTEE AND ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 718
The Delhi High Court has ordered vacation of a mosque and madarsa situated at Sarai Kale Khan's Hazrat Nizamuddin which are set for demolition by civic authorities.
A vacation bench comprising Justice Amit Sharma rejected the plea moved by Faizyab Masjid and Madarsa challenging the decision of the authorities of demolition.
Delhi High Court Restrains Rogue Websites From Unauthorisedly Streaming ICC Men's T20 World Cup 2024
Title: STAR INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED v. MAGICWIN.GAMES & ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 719
The Delhi High Court recently restrained various rogue websites from unauthorisedly and illegally streaming the ongoing ICC Men's T20 World Cup 2024.
Justice Sanjeev Narula observed that the plaintiff, Star India Private Limited, made out a prima facie case for the grant of an interim injunction.
Case Title: Vijay Maheshwari Vs Splendor Buildwell Private Limited And Anr
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 720
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna has held that under a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the scope of inquiry is very limited to grant interim relief.
Case Title: Dinesh Jindal Vs ACIT and Ors
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 721
While quashing the reassessment notice issued to the Assessee, pursuant to a search operation conducted against a third party, the Delhi High Court held the same to be barred by limitation under first proviso to Section 149(1) read with Section 153C & Section 153A of Income tax Act.
Case Title: GE Capital Us Holdings Inc Vs DCIT
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 722
While quashing a show cause notice issued by the Department for initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 270A in a vague manner, the Delhi High Court held that categorical finding of 'mis-reporting/ under-reporting' is essential for levy of penalty u/s 270A.
Case Title: PCIT Vs Care Health Insurance Limited
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 723
While upholding ITAT's decision deleting disallowance of provisions for unsettled outstanding claims and 'Incurred But Not Reported' (IBNR) claims of health insurance company, the Delhi High Court held that provisions for unsettled outstanding and IBNR claims are not contingent liabilities, and hence allowable u/s 37 of Income tax Act.
Title: Vaibhav Singh Sunita Kejriwal & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 724
The Delhi High Court has directed various social media platforms to take remove audio or video recording of court proceedings when Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal addressed the court personally after his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in the alleged liquor policy scam.
Delhi High Court Orders Removal Of Tweets By Congress Leaders Against Journalist Rajat Sharma
Title: Rajat Sharma v. X Corp & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 725
The Delhi High Court has ordered removal of tweets made by Congress leaders Ragini Nayak, Jairam Ramesh and Pawan Khera alleging that senior journalist Rajat Sharma used abusive language on air during a show on the election result day.
Delhi High Court Rejects IFS Mahaveer Singhvi's Defamation Suits Against Hindustan Times
Title: MAHAVEER SINGHVI v. HINDUSTAN TIMES LIMITED & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 726
The Delhi High Court has recently dismissed two defamation suits filed by 1999 batch IFS Mahaveer Singhvi against Hindustan Times newspaper, both English and Hindi editions, over two news reports published in 2002.
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna dismissed the suits and observed that the articles published in the two newspapers were not per se defamatory.
“Balancing the right of information of the public with the duty of the Media of truthful reporting and the individual right of protection of his reputation, it is held that the Articles which are the subject matter of the two suits, are not per se defamatory,” the court said.
Case Title: Infosys Ltd vs. Southern Infosys Ltd
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 727
The Delhi High Court has recently clarified that minor procedural missteps that are adequately explained should not overshadow the merits of the case, particularly if there exists clear evidence of trademark infringement. Court said that visual or phonetic similarities may lead to consumer confusion.
A single bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula observed that “the combination of visual, phonetic, and conceptual similarities between the marks, on a prima facie assessment significantly raises the likelihood of consumer confusion, suggesting that 'Southern Infosys Limited' might be mistakenly associated with the Plaintiff.”
Title: ED v. Arvind Kejriwal
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 728
The Delhi High Court has stayed the order granting bail to Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal in the money laundering case connected to the liquor policy case.
The Court stayed the operation of the bail order till final order is passed on the stay application filed by the Directorate of Enforcement(ED).
Court Empowered To Extend Mandate Of Arbitral Tribunal Even After Its Expiry: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Ss Steel Fabricators and Contractors vs Narsing Decor
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 729
The Delhi High Court bench Justice Manoj Jain has held that the court is fully empowered to extend the mandate, even after the expiry of the mandate of the tribunal under Section 29A(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Case Title: Capri Global Capital Limited Vs Ms Kiran
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 730
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani has held for the purposes of proceedings under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act, where the appointment of an arbitrator is sought, the question of whether the claims are time-barred should ideally be left for determination by the arbitral tribunal.
Non-Participating Party Cannot Challenge Tender Awards: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Primatel Fibcom Ltd Vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 731
The Delhi High Court bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora has held that a party which did not participate in a tender process lacks the standing to challenge the tender's award.
Title: ED v. Arvind Kejriwal
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 732
The Delhi High Court has stayed the trial court's order granting bail to Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal in the excise policy case.
Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain allowed the application moved by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) seeking stay of the trial court's order.
Case Title: Glaxo Group Limited and Others vs Rajiv Mukul and Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 733
The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh allowed an execution petition against the Defendants engaged in the infringement of the trademarks of Glaxo Group Limited, a biopharma company engaged in the production of vaccines. The High Court held that an executing court can delve into the merits of infringement to judge the violation of an original decree granting a permanent injunction to restrain the Defendants.
Title: LAKSHMI MURDESHWAR PURI v. SAKET GOKHALE
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 734
The Delhi High Court has directed All India Trinamool Congress MP Saket Gokhale to pay Rs. 50 lakhs damages to former Indian Assistant Secretary-General to the United Nations, Lakshmi Puri, in her defamation suit against him.
Gokhale in his tweets had referred to a property purchased by Puri in Switzerland and raised questions regarding her and her husband, Union Minister Hardeep Puri's assets. He had also tagged Finance Minister Nirmala Sitaraman in the tweets and sought an ED inquiry.
Title: K Kavitha v. CBI, ED
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 735
The Delhi High Court has denied bail to BRS leader K Kavitha in the money laundering and corruption cases related to the alleged liquor policy scam.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma rejected Kavitha's pleas seeking bail in the cases registered by Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and Enforcement Directorate (ED).
Title: Bibhav Kumar v. State
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 736
The Delhi High Court has accepted the maintainability of a plea filed by Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal's aide Bhibhav Kumar challenging his arrest in the alleged Swati Maliwal assault case.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma pronounced the order which was reserved for judgment on May 31. Notice has been issued to the Delhi Police.
Title: RAKESH YADAV & ORS. v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 737
The Delhi High Court has observed that criminal cases involving allegations of sexual violence cannot be quashed on the basis of monetary payments as doing so would imply that “justice is for sale.”
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma made the observation while rejecting a plea moved by a rape accused seeking quashing of an FIR registered by a woman on the ground that the matter was amicably settled between the parties and that she agreed to settle her claims for Rs. 1.5 lakhs.
Title: X Corp v. Rajat Sharma
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 738
X Corp. (formerly Twitter) has moved the Delhi High Court against a single judge order which directed removal of tweets made by Congress leaders Ragini Nayak, Jairam Ramesh and Pawan Khera alleging that senior journalist Rajat Sharma used abusive language on air during a show on the election result day.
The court, with the consent of both the parties, clarified that the single judge order is an ad interim order and that the injunction application will be taken up by the single judge for hearing and disposal on July 11.
Title: CAPTAIN DEEPAK KUMAR v. ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 739
The Delhi High Court has dismissed an appeal against a single judge order rejecting a plea seeking disqualification of Prime Minister Narendra Modi from contesting the Lok Sabha elections.
A division bench comprising of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela rejected the appeal filed by Captain Deepak Kumar.
Title: COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 740
The Delhi High Court has ruled that in cases under the POCSO Act, the court is required to consider the upper side of the estimated age of the victim where the age of is proved through bone age ossification test.
“In such cases of sexual assault, wherever, the court is called upon to determine the age of victim based on "bone age ossification report", the upper age given in "reference range‟ be considered as age of the victim,” a division bench comprising of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Manoj Jain observed.
Title: CA RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA v. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY GENERAL
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 741
The Delhi High Court recently observed that publication of reasons by the Supreme Court Collegium for rejection of the recommendations made by the High Court Collegium for elevation of Judges to the High Court will be detrimental to the interests and standing of people whose names have been recommended by the High Courts.
A division bench headed by Acting Chief Justice Manmohan said that the collegium deliberates and decides on the basis of information which is private to the individual being considered.
Title: PINTU DAS v. STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 742
The Delhi High Court has observed that when the judiciary takes a firm stand against child sexual harassment, it encourages victims and their families to report such crimes and reduces the stigma associated with seeking justice and ensuring that cases are handled with the utmost seriousness.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said that victim and victim's family shaming must not be allowed as it will be a deterrent and road block in the real victims reporting such offences to the authorities.
Case Title: DONGGUAN HUALI INDUSTRIES CO. LTD vs. ANAND AGGARWAL AND ORS
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 743
Finding that the contents of the plaint sufficiently demonstrate the Plaintiff's rights in the trademark “HUALI”, as well as their prior and extensive use of the same, the Delhi High Court held that the Plaintiff holds the seniority in usage rights of the “HUALI” trademark.
Therefore, the High Court restrained the Defendants from manufacturing, selling, exporting, offering for sale, advertising/ displaying, directly or indirectly, their products under the trademark “HUALI”.
Title: ASHOK KUMAR v. STATE & ANR.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 744
The Delhi High Court has recently said that the conduct of the litigants to keep the dispute alive for mala fide reasons has the tendency of keeping the docket of the Courts heavy to the detriment of other litigants whose cases have been pending for years.
Justice Amit Mahajan made the observation while quashing two complaints filed in 2016 under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against a man.
Title: M/S KG MARKETING INDIA v. MS. RASHI SANTOSH SONI & ANR.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 745
The Delhi High Court has referred to Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) for the first time after it came into effect on July 01, while dealing with the issue of forgery and fabrication of documents by a party in a trademark infringement dispute.
In a ruling passed on July 02, Justice Prathiba M Singh dealt with a suit wherein two newspaper advertisements relied upon by the plaintiff, KG Marketing, were forged and fabricated.
Case Title: International Management Group (Uk) Limited Versus Commissioner Of Income Tax-2, International Taxation, New Delhi
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 746
The Delhi High Court has held that services provided by International Management Group (IMG) are utilized by the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) outside India, so the income determined as Fee for Technical Services (FTS) cannot be deemed to accrue in India and therefore cannot be taxed in India.
High Court Appreciates Delhi Govt's DoE For Distributing Textbooks In All Govt Schools
Title: Social Jurist v. Gnctd & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 747
The Delhi High Court has appreciated the Delhi Government's Directorate of Education for complete distribution of textbooks in all the government schools in the national capital.
Accordingly, the court closed the PIL filed by NGO Social Jurist, arguing that students in the MCD schools are being deprived of statutory benefits like uniform, writing material, notebooks etc.
Order Of ITSC Final And Conclusive For AY For Which Application Has Been Filed: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax -Central -1 Versus Maharaji Education Trust
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 748
The Delhi High Court has held that the order of the Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC) is final and conclusive for a particular assessment year (AY) for which the application has been filed.
Title: DELL INTERNATIONAL SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED v. ADEEL FEROZE & ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 749
The Delhi High Court has observed that WhatsApp conversations cannot be read as evidence without there being a proper certificate as mandated under the Evidence Act, 1872.
Justice Subramonium Prasad was dealing with a plea moved by Dell International Services India Private Limited challenging an order passed by the Delhi State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission upholding the District Commission's order refusing to take on record its written statement on the ground that it was filed beyond the period of limitation.
Title: HARINDERJIT SINGH v. DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE BENCH III THE INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF INDIA & ANR. and other connected matters
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 750
The Delhi High Court has observed that there is a need for enhancing and strengthening the disciplinary mechanisms against firms of Chartered Accountants (CAs) as well as to enhance the accountability and transparency of such firms.
Justice Prathiba M Singh said there is an imminent need for strengthening the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) by expeditiously notifying the amendments passed by the Chartered Accountants, the Cost and Works Accountants and the Company Secretaries (Amendment) Act, 2022.
Title: SAURAV CHAUDHARY v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 751
The Delhi High Court has asked the Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trade Marks (CGPDTM) to prepare a draft Code of Conduct to regulate Patent and Trademark Agents and to put it on its website within two months for stakeholder consultation.
Justice Prathiba M Singh directed that the Code of Conduct be then notified within six months and latest by December 31.
ITSC Empowered To Make Income Tax Addition: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Harsh Dhanuka HUF Versus PCIT
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 752
The Delhi High Court has held that the Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC) does not lack jurisdiction to make an addition, which has also been duly recorded in the terms of settlement.
AO Can't Review Its Own Order: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Aarti Fabricott Private Limited Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Delhi & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 753
The Delhi High Court has held that the Assessing Officer (AO) cannot review its own order.
The bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav has observed in the extract of the impugned corrigendum that no new material has been found by the department, which would warrant reopening the assessment.
Title: TESLA INC. v. TESLA POWER INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 754
The Delhi High Court has referred to mediation the trademark infringement suit filed by Tesla Inc., owned by Elon Musk, against a Gurugram-based company, Tesla Power India Private Limited and its US counterpart.
Title: MRS. R. v. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT & ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 755
The Delhi High Court has observed that in cases seeking medical termination of pregnancy (MTP), medical professionals in the medical board must offer their expert opinions without fear of legal repercussions.
Justice Sanjeev Narula said that medical professionals must focus on providing the best possible medical guidance in such sensitive matters.
“The Court must therefore before parting emphasise that the opinion of the Medical Board in such cases of termination of pregnancy is of considerable importance for assisting the Courts in arriving at a just order,” the court said.
Title: SUBLIME SOFTWARE LTD. v. UNION OF INDIA
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 756
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a plea against the blocking of open-source messaging application “Briar” by the Union Government in Jammu and Kashmir over threat to national security and sovereignty.
Justice Subramonium Prasad rejected the plea moved by Sublime Software Limited which developed the app challenging the Union Government's blocking order.
Title: HARISH RANA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 757
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a plea moved by a 30 years old man seeking constitution of a Medical Board to examine his health condition for administration of passive euthanasia.
Justice Subramonium Prasad rejected the plea moved by the man who suffered head injuries after falling from the fourth floor of his paying guest house and has been confined to his bed since 2013 due to diffuse axonal injury with Permanent Vegetative state, Quadriplegia with 100% disability.
Title: RAJAN TEWARI v. DURGESH KUMAR PATHAK & ANR
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 758
The Delhi High Court has refused to reject a plea challenging the election of Aam Aadmi Party leader Durgesh Kumar Pathak in the Assembly by-elections of 2022.
Pathak was declared as a winner from Rajinder Nagar constituency by defeating his nearest rival by a margin of 11,468 votes.
Delhi High Court Dismisses Plea Alleging 'Cartelization' In Air India-Vistara Merger
Title: CAPTAIN DEEPAK KUMAR v. COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 759
The Delhi High Court has recently dismissed a plea against the merger of Vistara Airlines and Air India Limited over allegations of cartelization and bid rigging.
Justice Sanjeev Narula rejected the plea moved by former Air India Pilot, Captain Deepak Kumar, observing that the allegations are unsubstantiated and not supported by any evidence.
Case title: Delhi Medical Association & Anr. vs. Govt NCT of Delhi & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 760
The Delhi High Court has directed the Directorate General of Health Services, Delhi Fire Service and Delhi Development Authority to form a Joint Committee and immediately inspect the private nursing homes to demine whether they are following fire safety norms or not.
Title: CONFEDERATION OF NGOS & ANR. V/s UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 761
The Delhi High Court has rejected a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking action against Dalai Lama allegedly molesting a boy child by kissing on his lips in February last year.
A division bench comprising of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela took judicial notice of the fact that Dalai Lama has expressed his apology to those who have been offended by his action.
Title: Ajay Gautam v. DCPCR & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 762
The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi Government and the Delhi Police to ensure that publicity is given to the child helpline number 1098 to deal with incidents of child begging in the national capital.
A division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela disposed of a PIL filed by Ajay Gautam seeking requisite steps to eradicate the problem of child beggary and related problems in and around Delhi.
Contempt: Delhi High Court Sentences Man To 'Sit In Court Till Rising', Imposes ₹1 Lakh Fine
Title: COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. PRADEEP AGGARWAL
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 763
Holding a man guilty of contempt for filing a writ petition for “personal gain”, the Delhi High Court has sentenced him “remain present in the Court till its rising”.
A division bench of Justice Prathiba M Singh and Justice Amit Sharma ordered the sentencing considering the man's medical condition, age and the fact that he expressed remorse and apologised for his conduct.
Case Title: Growth Techno Projects Limited Vs Ishwar Industries Limited
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 764
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh has held the time period starting from the filing of the petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act till the amendment to the Arbitration Act in 2015, stands excluded from the counting of the limitation period for the enforcement of the arbitral award.
Title: GUJARAT OPERATIONAL CREDITORS ASSOCIATION v. NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL & ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 765
The Delhi High Court has requested the Chairperson of National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) to examine the viability of recording of proceedings of National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) benches across the country as well as the former.
Case title: Amit Sharma vs. Sugandha Sharma
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 766
The Delhi High Court has observed that in custody matters, a parent without the custody of their child is entitled to visitation rights so as to maintain the bond with their child. The Court stated that joint parenting is the norm and emphasised that the best interest of the child needs to be taken into consideration while determining custody.
Delhi High Court Upholds FSSAI Regulation To Enhance Statutory Warning Size On Pan Masala Packages
Title: DHARAMPAL SATYAPAL LIMITED AND ANR v. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 767
The Delhi High Court has upheld the Regulation issued by Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) in October 2022 enhancing the size of statutory warning on pan masala packages from 3mm to 50% of front-of-pack of the label.
A division bench comprising of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora dismissed the plea filed by Dharampal Satyapal Limited, licensed manufacturer of Pan Masala brands namely, Rajnigandha, Tansen, and Mastaba.
Title: BANTU v. STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 768
The Delhi High Court has observed that the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which replaced the British-era Code of Criminal Procedure, heralds a transformative era in the criminal justice.
Title: VINOD v. STATE N.C.T. OF DELHI
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 769
The Delhi High Court has directed all the police stations in the national capital to ensure that there shall be no waiting period for 24 hours to start inquiry or investigation in cases of missing children.
Title: SHABNAM BURNEY v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 770
The Delhi High Court has directed the Vice Chairman of Delhi Development Authority (DDA) to remove all the encroachments and illegal construction on the Yamuna river bank, river bed and drains flowing into the river.
Title: Rajat Sharma v. X Corp & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 771
The Delhi High Court has directed Congress leaders Ragini Nayak, Jairam Ramesh and Pawan Khera to immediately delete “defamatory tweets” against senior journalist Rajat Sharma latest by 7 PM today, in compliance of an interim order passed on June 14.
Arbitration Clauses Require Explicit Reference In Subsequent Agreements: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Deepa Chawla Vs Raheja Developers Ltd
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 772
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh has held that for an arbitration clause to be enforceable in subsequent agreements, it must be explicitly referenced within those agreements.
Arbitration Clause In Lease Agreement Invalidated By Subsequent Verbal Agreement: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Mukesh Khurana Vs Rahul Chaudhary
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 773
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Manoj Jain has held that the arbitration clause in a lease agreement ceases to exist if the lease terminates and a new verbal tenancy agreement is established.
Swati Maliwal Assault Case: Delhi High Court Denies Bail To Accused Bibhav Kumar
Title: SH. BIBHAV KUMAR v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 774
The Delhi High Court has denied bail to Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal's close aide Bhibhav Kumar in the alleged Swati Maliwal assault case.
Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta rejected Kumar's bail plea, observing that though he happens to be only designated as a personal secretary to the Chief Minister but he yields considerable influence.
Case Title: New Okhla Industrial Development Authority Versus Union Of India & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 775
The Delhi High Court has held that the loans and advances extended by the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA) are not commercial activities and are eligible for exemption under Section 10(46) of the Income Tax Act.
TPO Lacks Jurisdiction To Question Commercial Expediency Or Genuineness Of Need: Delhi High Court
Case Title: PCIT Versus Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 776
The Delhi High Court has held that the statutory authority conferred upon the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) can only extend to an examination of the appropriateness of the method adopted for the purposes of determining arm's length pricing (ALP) or evaluating the enlistment of comparables. However, the TPO would neither be justified nor could it be countenanced to have the jurisdiction to question commercial expediency or genuineness of need.
Disputes Related To Lock-In Periods In Employment Contracts Are Arbitrable: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Lily Packers Private Limited Vs Vaishnavi Vijay Umak and connected matters
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 777
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh has held that disputes relating to lock-in periods that apply during the subsistence of employment contracts are arbitrable under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Case Title: GJ (JV) Comprising of M/S Godara Construction Company M/S Jandu Construction India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union Of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 778
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Prateek Jalan has held that panel comprising of serving or retired officers of Railways not only restricted the party's choice but also compelled it to choose its nominee from amongst four names suggested by the Railways.
Case Title: Kamla Vohra Versus Sales Tax Officer
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 779
The Delhi High Court has held that the uploading of notices by the GST department under the heading 'additional notices' amounts to sufficient service.
Case Title: Murari Lal Agarwal Vs Kmc Construction Limited & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 780
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Prateek Jalan has held that in a 'two-contract case', a specific reference to the arbitration clause in an earlier contract is necessary for its incorporation into the main contract between the parties.
A 'two-contract case' refers to a situation where there are two separate contracts involved and the parties seek to incorporate terms, including an arbitration clause, from one contract into another.
Case Title: M/S Dhawan Box Sheet Containers Pvt Ltd Vs M/S Sel Manufacturing Co Ltd
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 781
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Prateek Jalan has held that when parties engage in actions based on invoices containing arbitration clauses, demonstrating mutual acceptance, an arbitration agreement may be inferred directly from those invoices.
Case Title: Nafees Ahmed Vs Delhi Tourism And Transportation Development Corporation Ltd
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 782
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar has held that coercion, or its absence in a dispute is a complex question, purely of fact, which has necessarily to be examined by the arbitral tribunal. The bench held that with the introduction of sub-Section 6(A) in Section 11, the jurisdiction of the referral court is now circumscribed.
Case Title: BPT Infra Project Pvt. Ltd. Vs Indraprastha Ice And Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 783
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar has held that while exercising power under Section 27(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to grant a request to summon a witness, the arbitrator is not required to offer detailed reasons when granting such a request.
Case Title: Reliance Communications Limited Vs Unique Identification Authority Of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 784
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar has dismissed a petition filed by Reliance Communications under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 noting that the arbitrator correctly divided the total number of call seconds by 60 to determine the number of call minutes. The bench noted that the company is not entitled to a whole minute if the call lasted only part of a minute.
Case title: Deepak Sinha vs. Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare & Anr. (W.P.(C) 11217/2021)
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 785
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition that sought to direct the Homeopathic Pharmacopoeia Laboratory, Ministry of Ayush to analyse certain Homeopathic prescriptions, in order to enable the Inter-Departmental Committee of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare to decide on the recognition of Electro Homeopathy as an alternative system of medicine.
Title: Bar Council of Delhi v. Govt. ofN.C.T. of Delhi & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 786
The Delhi High Court has directed the civic authorities in the national capital to conduct a joint inspection of the office of the Bar Council of Delhi (BCD), situated at Siri Fort Institutional Area, over the issue of water logging due to heavy rain in the monsoon season.
Case Title: Olive Traders Versus The Commissioner, CGST
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 787
The Delhi High Court has quashed the order cancelling the petitioner's GST registration and permitted the petitioner to respond to the Show Cause Notice, since the only allegation against the petitioner is that it was found to be non-existent.
Case Title: Mukesh Udeshi vs Jindal Steel Power Ltd. and Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 788
The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Pratibha M. Singh held that only parties to an arbitration agreement can challenge the award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. It was further held that 3rd-party beneficiaries of domain names in India, who are impacted by the arbitral award, lack the standing to challenge the award.
Case Title: The Deputy Commissioner Of Police Vs Score Information Technologies Ltd
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 789
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju has held that the arbitral tribunal may exercise its power to award compensation for breach if a Contract has become incapable of specific performance.
Disobedience Of Interim Measures Due To Insolvency Proceedings Is Not Contempt: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Mr.Rajan Chadha & Anr Vs Mr.Sanjay Arora & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 790
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Mini Pushkarna has held that disobedience of interim measures granted under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 due to insolvency proceedings does not warrant contempt charges.
Title: SH. REHAN ELAHI & ANR. v. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 791
The Delhi High Court has recently expressed displeasure with the Delhi Government over its failure to issue administrative instructions, despite a judicial order passed nearly three years ago, regarding online registration of marriages solemnized under Muslim and Christian Personal Laws under the Compulsory Registration of Marriage Order, 2014.
Case Title: Welspun Enterprises Ltd Vs Kasthuri Infra Projects Pvt Ltd
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 792
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar has held that once an Arbitral Tribunal is in place, ordinarily a court should refrain from dealing with the matter even for the purposes of passing interlocutory orders unless the order is demonstrably one which cannot await the application of mind by the Arbitral Tribunal.
Case Title: Dr Reddys Laboratories Limited vs Rebanta Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 793
The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Mini Pushkarna held that using visually and phonetically identical marks for medicines could confuse the general public, especially when the products serve different medical purposes.
Case title: Sanyam Bhushan vs. State NCT of Delhi & Anr. (CRL.M.C. 1675/2022 & CONNECTED MATTERS)
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 794
The Delhi High Court has observed that failure to avail alternate remedy on the ground of ongoing settlement process is not a reason for the court to exercise its discretionary power to quash the complaint cases.
Case Title: Aeiforia Constructions Pvt. Ltd. & Anr Vs Continental Carbon India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 795
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani has held that the issuance of summons under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 requires a clear application of mind. The bench held that this application of mind must be evident upon reading the summoning order; the appellate or revisional court should not have to speculate about the considerations of the Magistrate who issued the summons.
Delhi High Court Holds DDA And Its Officials Guilty Of Contempt In Land Allotment Case
Case title: Bimla Sachdev vs. Subur & anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 796
The Delhi High Court has held the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) and its officials, the Vice Chairman and the Deputy Director (Land Disposal), to be in contempt of the court's orders in a case relating to land allotment.
Title: Shri S. Rabban Alam v. CBI Though Its Director
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 797
Giving a “possible interpretation” of Section 531(2)(a) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, the Delhi High Court said that only if an appeal is pending before the new law came into force, can such an appeal be continued under the Cr.P.C.
Title: SATHISH BABU SANA v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT & ANR. and other connected matters
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 798
The Delhi High Court has upheld the money laundering proceedings initiated against Businessman Sathish Babu Sana in relation to the PMLA case involving meat exporter Moin Qureshi and other persons.
Case Title: Indian Railway Catering And Tourism Corporation Ltd. Vs M/S Deepak And Co
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 799
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh has held that findings made by an arbitrator which are consistent with the documentary evidence and admissions made during cross-examination are reasonable and not perverse.
Title: PRINCE v. STATE OF GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 800
The Delhi High Court has observed that procedure with respect to anticipatory bail pleas filed in relation to FIRs lodged prior to enforcement of new criminal laws should be governed by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, if the date of filing such application is on or after July 1, 2024.