Citations 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 356 to 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 472NOMINAL INDEXA v. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HEALTH GNCTD 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 356Mohammed Akmam Uddin Ahmed & Ors. Versus Commissioner Appeals Customs And Central Excise 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 357BPI Sports LLC v. Saurabh Gulati & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 358SMITA MAAN AND ANR. v. REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 359KANKIPATI...
Citations 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 356 to 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 472
NOMINAL INDEX
A v. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HEALTH GNCTD 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 356
Mohammed Akmam Uddin Ahmed & Ors. Versus Commissioner Appeals Customs And Central Excise 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 357
BPI Sports LLC v. Saurabh Gulati & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 358
SMITA MAAN AND ANR. v. REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 359
KANKIPATI RAJESH v. ADJUDICATING AUTHORITY, PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING ACT, 2002 & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 360
Chandini through her natural guardian v. BFI 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 361
Delhi Waqf Board v. Union of India 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 362
ALEMLA JAMIR v. NIA 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 363
PONDICHERRY BASKETBALL ASSOCIATION v. UNION OF INDIA and other connected matters 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 364
ASHISH MITTAL v. SERIOUS FRAUD INVESTIGATION OFFICE 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 365
BUDDHABHUSHAN ANAND LONDHE & ORS v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 366
SJ v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 367
Sushma Prasad v. GNCTD & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 368
Fedders Electric & Engineering v. Srishthi Constructions 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 369
NINA LATH GUPTA v. UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF INFORMATION AND BROADCASTING & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 370
NISHA PRIYA BHATIA v. CPIO, DIRECTORATE OF ESTATES, MINISTRY OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT & ANR 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 371
NAVEEN KUMAR DALAL v. NEELAM KADYAN 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 372
NEETA BHARDWAJ & ORS. v. KAMLESH SHARMA 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 373
Master Arnesh Shaw v. Union of India & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 374
PREETENDRA SINGH AULAKH v. GREEN LIGHT FOODS PVT. LTD. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 375
SMT. ASHA GUPTA v. SHRI SANDEEP GUPTA AND OTHERS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 376
Dharampal Satyapal Sons Private Limited vs Google L.L.C. & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 377
AARSHI R KAPOOR & ANR v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR and other connected matter 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 378
Virander Kumar Sharma Punj & Anr v. GNCTD & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 379
INDEPENDENT THOUGHT v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 380
Kismatun v. State 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 381
P. SARATH CHANDRA REDDY v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 382
SANJEEV KUMAR v. THE STATE NCT OF DELHI 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 383
AMIT JAIN v. MAHAVIR INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD & ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 384
Nishant Khatri v. BCI 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 385
MAHESH KUMAR v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 386
Manoj Tiwari v. Manish Sisodia & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 387
PepsiCo Inc. & Anr. vs Jagpin Breweries Limited & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 388
Union of India vs Reliance Industries Limited & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 389
SA v. MA 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 390
X & Y v. Z 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 391
JAQUAR COMPANY PVT LTD v. VILLEROY BOCH AG & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 392
The Indian Hotels Company Limited vs Vivanta Hospitality Private Limited 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 393
Uno Minda Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner Revenue Department 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 394
Azmat Ali Khan v. Union of India & Ors 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 395
SAKIB AHMED v. STATE NCT OF DELHI 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 396
PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH SECRETARY & ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 397
RAMESH ABHISHEK v. LOKPAL OF INDIA & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 398
CHARANJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA v. UNION OF INDIA 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 399
OPENTV INC v. THE CONTROLLER OF PATENTS AND DESIGNS AND ANR 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 400
SYNTHES GMBH v. CONTROLLER GENERAL OF PATENTS, DESIGNS AND TRADEMARKS AND ANR 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 401
MICROSOFT TECHNOLOGY LICENSING, LLC v. THE ASSISTANT CONTROLLER OF PATENTS AND DESIGNS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 402
Bennett, Coleman and Company Limited & Anr. vs. Planet Media Group & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 403
Durga P. Mishra v. Govt of NCT Delhi & anr 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 404
Radnik Exports v. Supertech Realtors Pvt Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 405
S.S. Con-Build Pvt Ltd vs Delhi Development Authority 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 406
RAJU YADAV v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI and other connected matter 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 407
Prateek Chitkara Versus JCIT 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 408
RAJESH PRAKASH LOHANI AND ORS v. THE STATE AND ANR 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 409
GAUTAM GAMBHIR v. PUNJAB KESARI & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 410
Dev Saran v. State 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 411
VIVEKANANDA INSTITUTE OF PROFESSIONAL STUDIES- TECHNICAL CAMPUS v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. and other connected matters 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 412
Dhananjay Rathi vs Shree Vasu Steels Private Limited & Ors 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 413
SAMEER DNYANDEV WANKHEDE v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 414
SMT KARTARI DEVI v. SH. VINOD KUMAR AND ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 415
M EHTESHAM UL HAQUE v. UNION OF INDIA DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCE DEPARTMENT THROUGH ITS SECRETARY & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 416
Master Arnesh Shaw v. Union of India & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 417
KASHIF v. NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 418
RECKITT BENCKISER (INDIA) PVT. LIMITED & ANR. v. WIPRO ENTERPRISES (P) LIMITED 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 419
Durga P. Mishra v. Govt of NCT Delhi & anr 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 420
Department of Transport, GNCTD vs Star Bus Services Pvt Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 421
SH. CHHATTER PAL & ORS. v. STATE & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 422
AVINASH JAIN versus CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 423
Atul Agarwal vs UOI & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 424
Maj Pankaj Rai v. NIIT Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 425
SMT. CHETNA RATHEE v. CHAHIT KUNDU 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 426
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. v. SHRI. JOGINDER SINGH 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 427
Kiran Thakur vs Resident Commissioner Bihar Bhavan 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 428
RITVIK SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 429
ANAND v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 430
KAMALJEET SEHRAWAT v. OFFICE OF LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR OF DELHI & ORS. and other connected matter 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 431
JUSTICE FOR ALL v. LAXMI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY AND ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 432
DR PRANNOY ROY & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 433
Carpet Export Promotion Council Versus Union Of India 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 434
RDB AND CO. HUF v. HARPERCOLLINS PUBLISHERS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 435
PROF. DR. SANJEEV BAGAI & ORS. v. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (ENVIRONMENT AND FOREST) & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 436
Satish Chandra Verma v. UOI & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 437
ADV. SHIV KUMAR v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 438
Shruti Sharma v. UOI & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 439
RITU CHERNALIA v. AMAR CHERNALIA & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 440
VK & ANR versus STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 441
Roadway Solutions India Infra Limited vs National Highway Authority of India 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 442
DR. RAJENDRA KUMAR PACHAURI v. INDU JAIN & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 443
M/s Vindhya Vasini Construction Co vs M/s Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 444
Central PWD Engineers Assoc. & Anr. V. UOI & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 445
SANJAY GANDHI MEMORIAL TRUST v. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) & ORS. and other connected matters 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 446
Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd. & Anr vs Telecom Regulatory Authority Of India 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 447
KUSH KALRA v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 448
MR. YUSUFFALI MUSALIAM VEETTIL ABDUL KADER vs MR. SHAJAN SKARIAH & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 449
New Delhi Nature Society v. Rajesh Bansal & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 450
INDU KAPOOR v. AU SMALL FINANCE BANK & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 451
Najmus Sehar vs M/s Bombay Marcantile Coop Bank & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 452
Shivalaya Construction Co. Pvt Ltd. v. National Insurance Company Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 453
Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 454
Kishore Kumar v. State 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 455
Ram Tej v. State 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 456
DHANPATI @ DHANWANTI v. THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 457
RENUKA v. University Grants Commission and Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 458
M/s Mahesh Construction vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 459
Manish Sisodia v. CBI 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 460
XXX vs. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 461
Daeyoung Jung v. Bar Council of India & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 462
RESILIENT INNOVATIONS PVT. LTD. v. PHONEPE PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 463
Mayo Foundation For Medical Education & Research vs Bodhisatva Charitable Trust & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 464
Vipin Mittal v. NIA 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 465
Centre For Policy Research Versus Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 466
Ideal Broadcasting India Pvt. Ltd Versus Union Of India 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 467
Prem Kumar Chopra Versus ACIT 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 468
Fayiz Nangaparambil Versus Union Of India 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 469
EMECHERE MADUABUCHKWU v. STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 470
Sony Pictures Animation Inc. vs FLIXHD.CC/ & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 471
MAJ GEN. V.K. SINGH (RETD.) v. CBI 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 472
Title: A v. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HEALTH GNCTD
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 356
The Delhi High Court directed the Medical Superintendent of LNJP Hospital to not disclose identity details of a 14-year-old, who is seeking termination of her 11-week pregnancy.
Justice Prathiba M Singh also directed the concerned SHO of Delhi Police to ensure that the identity of the minor or her family is not disclosed during the process of investigation.
Section 19(1) of POCSO Act provides mandatory reporting of child sexual offences to the Special Juvenile Police Unit or the local police.
Case Title: Mohammed Akmam Uddin Ahmed & Ors. Versus Commissioner Appeals Customs And Central Excise
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 357
The Delhi High Court has allowed the appeals of poor daily wage earners against the seizure of goods without insisting on the requirement of pre-deposit.
The bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju has observed that the statute may, at times, impose conditions as a requirement of filing an appeal. However, a condition that is unduly onerous will render the right to appeal null and void.
Case Title: BPI Sports LLC v. Saurabh Gulati & Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 358
The Delhi High Court, while directing removal of a word mark from the register of trade marks, has observed that 'trade mark squatting', which is an internationally known intellectual property misdemeanour, would certainly amount to “bad faith” within the meaning of Section 11(10)(ii) of the Trade Marks Act even if the term does not find a special mention in the law.
The court held that the real intent and purpose of Section 11(10)(ii) is to disentitle registration of a mark, the request for registration of which is tainted by bad faith.
Minor’s Passport Can Be Issued Without Father’s Name, Depending Upon Circumstances: Delhi High Court
Title: SMITA MAAN AND ANR. v. REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 359
The Delhi High Court has observed that the passport of a minor child can be issued without the biological father’s name under “varying circumstances” and that such a relief depends upon the “facts of each case.”
Emphasising that no hard and fast rule can be applied in such cases, Justice Prathiba M Singh said that the Passport Manual of 2020 and the official memorandum issued by Union Ministry of External Affairs on February 28 last year recognise that passports can be issued under different circumstances without father’s name.
Title: KANKIPATI RAJESH v. ADJUDICATING AUTHORITY, PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING ACT, 2002 & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 360
The Delhi High Court had warned the Adjudicating Authority under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) to not use “disconcerting language” in its orders and said that repeated use of “template paragraphs” is not permissible.
Justice Prathiba M Singh directed the Appellate Tribunal under PMLA to ensure that the Adjudicating Authority abides by the principles of natural justice and the court’s observations in Dr. U.S. Awasthi v. Adjudicating Authority PMLA & Anr.
“The Appellate Tribunal, PMLA would take the above observations into consideration and pass appropriate directions,” the court said.
Case Title: Chandini through her natural guardian v. BFI
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 361
The Delhi High Court has directed the Basketball Federation of India to hold a meeting with the Sports Authority of India and Union Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports to find a solution for players who are disqualified for not having a birth certificate obtained in the year of birth or within two years of birth, as per the BFI rule.
“It is possible that a large number of players would not have got issued certificates immediately upon their birth or within two years thereafter. Such a stipulation could exclude a large number of talented players from participation in trials. This ought not to be the intention of the Rule,” Justice Prathiba M Singh said.
Title: Delhi Waqf Board v. Union of India
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 362
The Delhi High Court has said that the Union Government may carry out physical inspection of 123 properties, possession of which is being claimed by the Delhi Waqf Board, while ensuring minimal disruption in the day-to-day administration of the properties.
Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri passed the order on April 26 in the petition moved by Delhi Waqf Board challenging the government’s decision to “absolve” the board from all matters pertaining to 123 properties.
Terror Funding Case: Delhi High Court Denies Default Bail To NSCN(IM) Leader Alemla Jamir
Title: ALEMLA JAMIR v. NIA
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 363
The Delhi High Court has denied default bail to Naga insurgent group National Socialist Council of Nagaland-Isak Muivah (NSCN (IM)) leader Alemla Jamir, arrested in a terror funding case probed by National Investigation Agency.
A division bench of Justice Siddharth Mridul and Justice Talwant Singh dismissed Jamir’s appeal challenging an order passed by Special NIA court on July 03, 2020, dismissing her application, seeking release on statutory bail, on the ground that the chargesheet was filed within the limitation period.
Title: PONDICHERRY BASKETBALL ASSOCIATION v. UNION OF INDIA and other connected matters
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 364
The Delhi High Court has appointed Justice P. Krishna Bhat, former judge of Karnataka High Court, as the Administrator to conduct the elections of Basketball Federation of India in accordance with National Sports Code and Model Election Guidelines.
Noting that the term of the office bearers of the federation stood expired on February 18, Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav said that the Administrator shall function till the newly elected body takes over the charge of BFI.
Title: ASHISH MITTAL v. SERIOUS FRAUD INVESTIGATION OFFICE
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 365
The Delhi High Court has observed that the prosecution cannot only recite from a complaint or simply say that it has material against an accused in respect of those offences for which twin conditions are stipulated in a statute for grant of bail.
Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani said that the prosecution must show how the material collected during investigation supports allegations in the complaint and how they apply against the accused.
Title: BUDDHABHUSHAN ANAND LONDHE & ORS v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 366
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a plea seeking relaxation for the students appearing in JEE Advanced 2023 examination.
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav rejected the plea moved by 67 students who are Class XII pass-outs of 2021 and could not use appear in the JEE (Advanced) Examination purportedly because of the COVID-19 pandemic.
The plea sought relaxation of the “two attempts in two consecutive years" criteria so that students who could not appear twice or even once in the years 2021 and 2022 be allowed to appear this year as a “special provision.”
Title: SJ v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 367
The Delhi High Court has ordered removal of online articles and publications in relation to a man against whom an FIR was lodged in 2021 for the offence of extortion by a friend due to his “immature prank” which was later settled and quashed in June last year.
Justice Prathiba M Singh granted relief to the 33-year-old, who was suspended by his employer until removal of the articles.
Delhi High Court Grants Interim Stay To Scrapping Of A Family Heritage Car
Case Title: Sushma Prasad v. GNCTD & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 368
The Delhi High Court has granted an interim stay on the scrapping of a 15-year-old Daewoo Matiz, which the petitioner claims is a 'family heritage car.' The court has also issued a notice to the transport department and its authorized vehicle scrapping agency, M/s Go Green ELV Handlers.
The bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri said that, “Till the next date of hearing, respondent No.3(scrapping agency)shall ensure that the subject vehicle is not dismantled or scrapped.”
Case Title: Fedders Electric & Engineering v. Srishthi Constructions
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 369
The Delhi High Court has held that the Court while exercising powers under Section 9(3) of the A&C Act cannot examine the allegations of fraud or forgery when the arbitral tribunal is already in place and seized of the matter.
The bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh held that once the arbitral tribunal has been constituted, the Court shall not entertain any application under Section 9 except in cases of exceptional circumstances in which the remedy before the tribunal would not be efficacious.
Title: NINA LATH GUPTA v. UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF INFORMATION AND BROADCASTING & ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 370
The Delhi High Court has observed that a termination order of an employee in a tenure employment is untenable in law if it is issued without giving an opportunity to the employee to defend against the accusations.
Referring to various judgments on the subject, Justice Jyoti Singh said:
“…if an order is founded on allegations, the order is stigmatic and punitive and services of an employee cannot be dispensed with without affording him an opportunity of defending the accusations/allegations made against him in a full-fledged inquiry.”
Title: NISHA PRIYA BHATIA v. CPIO, DIRECTORATE OF ESTATES, MINISTRY OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT & ANR
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 371
The Delhi High Court has observed that Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) is an exempted organisation under the Right to Information Act, 2005, unless the information sought relates to human rights or corruption related issues.
“RAW is an organisation which is specifically mentioned in the Section Schedule to the RTI Act. It is an exempt organisation. Unless the nature of information sought relates to human rights or corruption related issues, information is not liable to be disclosed,” Justice Prathiba M Singh observed.
Title: NAVEEN KUMAR DALAL v. NEELAM KADYAN
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 372
The Delhi High Court has observed that the cross-examination of a witness has to be concluded within a reasonable time limit and that it cannot continue “ad nauseam” in a never ending manner.
Observing that cross-examination of a witness is an opportunity to the party to rebut the evidence given by such witness, Justice Prathiba M Singh took strong note of a matrimonial case where cross examination of wife by the husband continued before the Family Court “on dates after dates.”
“Such cross-examination in matrimonial matters would be nothing more than sheer harassment,” the court said.
Case Title: NEETA BHARDWAJ & ORS. v. KAMLESH SHARMA
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 373
The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi Development Authority to cease construction on a land adjoining the Lotus Temple and Kalkaji Mandir, observing that it is likely to affect skyline in the area.
Dealing with a bunch of pleas concerning redevelopment of Kalkaji temple, Justice Prathiba M Singh perused various photographs and said that large scale construction is being carried out on the land.
Although the DDA claimed that the construction is temporary in nature, the court said that any construction of the nature being undertaken would affect the view of the Lotus Temple.
Case Title: Master Arnesh Shaw v. Union of India & Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 374
The Delhi High Court has summoned the Secretary of Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare in a bunch of pleas concerning the treatment of children suffering from rare diseases like Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy and Hunter's syndrome.
Justice Prathiba M Singh said that repeated orders of the court for release of further amounts for treatment have not been acceded to by Union Ministry.
Case Title: PREETENDRA SINGH AULAKH v. GREEN LIGHT FOODS PVT. LTD.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 375
The Delhi High Court has restrained a Tamil Nadu based manufacturer from using “Monsoon Harvest” mark till the pendency of a trademark infringement suit filed by owner of “Monsoon Harvest Farms”.
Justice Navin Chawla observed that the plaintiff, Preetendra Singh Aulakh, is the registered proprietor of the mark “Monsoon Harvest Farms” and also its prior user, and that the defendant's product is deceptively and confusingly similar.
Title: SMT. ASHA GUPTA v. SHRI SANDEEP GUPTA AND OTHERS
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 376
The Delhi High Court has observed that mere averment or a bald allegation is not sufficient to initiate contempt proceedings or issuance of show cause notice against a person.
Justice Chandra Dhari Singh said that the disobedience must be “wilful and beyond a casual or accidental genuine inability” to comply with the terms of the judicial order.
“ Moreover, mere unintentional disobedience is not enough, an absence of wilful disobedience on the part of the contemnor, will not hold him guilty unless the contempt involves a degree of fault or misconduct,” the court said.
Case Title: Dharampal Satyapal Sons Private Limited vs Google L.L.C. & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 377
The Delhi High Court has directed Google to take down Youtube videos claiming that Indian spices contain cow urine and cow dung — while displaying images of 'Catch' products — in case they resurface on the video sharing platform. Google told the court that the impugned videos are no longer available for viewing.
Justice Sanjeev Narula said that the YouTube Channels - ‘TVR’ and ‘Views NNews’, maliciously uploaded the videos containing derogatory and untrue remarks against Indian spices, particularly those sold under the 'Catch' brand and deliberately attempted to defame and disparage its goods, by creating and uploading the said videos.
Title: AARSHI R KAPOOR & ANR v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR and other connected matter
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 378
The Delhi High Court has directed the Union of India to ensure strict compliance of law against unauthorised alteration or fitment of crash guards or bull bars in vehicles under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Section 52 of the Act states that no owner of a vehicle shall alter it in a manner that the particulars contained in the certificate of registration are at variance with those originally specified by the manufacturer.
A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela observed that there is already a mechanism in place for taking appropriate action against those persons who are violating the provision.
Delhi High Court Dismisses PIL Seeking Introduction Of Legal Studies As Separate Subject In Schools
Title: Virander Kumar Sharma Punj & Anr v. GNCTD & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 379
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation seeking introduction of legal studies compulsorily as an elective or optional subjects in all schools.
A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad said that the subject matter is purely in the domain of the government and that such direction cannot be issued by court.
Title: INDEPENDENT THOUGHT v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 380
The Delhi High Court has held that Section 19 read with Section 21 of the POCSO Act, which provide for mandatory reporting of the offences under the enactment, shall override the restrictions imposed under Section 198(1) read with Section 198(3) of Cr.P.C.
A division bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Saurabh Banerjee also said that there is no distinct category within child victims of rape as those who are married and those who are not.
The bench, however, clarified that it has not dealt with the larger issue of “marital rape” of an adult woman.
Title: Kismatun v. State
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 381
The Delhi High Court has ordered that statement of a man, who was one of five men who were forced to sing Vande Mataram during the 2020 North-East Delhi riots, be recorded before the concerned Magistrate under Section 164 of CrPC within one week.
Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani said that Mohd. Wasim, who was a minor when the incident happened, be produced before the Magistrate for recording of his statement.
Title: P. SARATH CHANDRA REDDY v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 382
The Delhi High Court has granted regular bail on medical grounds to P Sarath Chandra Reddy in the money laundering case connected to the now-scrapped liquor policy of national capital, observing that a person who is sick or infirm has a right to have adequate and effective treatment.
Observing that right to live with dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution of India includes right to live a healthy life, Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma said:
“Though jails and designated hospitals provide good basic treatment, but we cannot expect them to provide specialised treatment and monitoring as required in the present case. Last medical report of the petitioner dated 03.05.2023 shows that petitioner is in bad state and can be put into the category of sick/infirm.”
Title: SANJEEV KUMAR v. THE STATE NCT OF DELHI
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 383
It is the duty of every judge to not only have a “sensitive heart” but also an “alert mind” while recording of witness statements and conducting trial in cases of sexual assault with children, the Delhi High Court has said.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed though the State and the administration can provide “necessary and modern infrastructure” to the judges, including vulnerable witness deposition complexes, “it cannot generate a sensitive heart of a judge.”
Title: AMIT JAIN v. MAHAVIR INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD & ORS
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 384
The Delhi High Court has observed that the refusal to refund court fees in a lis which remained unadjudicated and expecting the litigant to pay it again would discourage the litigant from approaching the justice dispensation system.
“Such a form of docket exclusion would be highly counterproductive for any civilized society,” a division bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Girish Kapthlia observed.
Consider Announcing AIBE Schedule Or Time Table In Advance Every Year: Delhi High Court To BCI
Title: Nishant Khatri v. BCI
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 385
The Delhi High Court has directed the Bar Council of India to consider announcing a pre-set schedule or time table for conduct of All India Bar Examination (AIBE) in advance every year.
Justice Prathiba M Singh observed that a pre-set schedule or an annual time table as part of the calendar every year would go a long way in assisting the candidates and to make requisite arrangements.
Title: MAHESH KUMAR v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 386
The Delhi High Court has said that “adolescent love” cannot be controlled by courts and judges have to be careful while rejecting or granting bail in such cases depending on facts and circumstances of each case.
Observing that teenagers who “try to imitate romantic culture of films and novels” remain unaware about the laws and age of consent, Justice Sawarana Kanta Sharma said:
“This Court also observes that the attitude towards early love relationships, especially adolescent love, has to be scrutinised in the backdrop of their real life situations to understand their actions in a given situation.”
Title: Manoj Tiwari v. Manish Sisodia & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 387
The Delhi High Court has stayed the trial court proceedings against BJP MP Manoj Tiwari in a defamation case filed by former deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia and ordered that no further steps be taken against him in the matter.
The defamation case was filed by Sisodia in 2019 against BJP leaders Manoj Tiwari, Hans Raj Hans, Manjinder Singh Sirsa, Parvesh Sahib Singh Verma, Harish Khurana and Vijender Gupta for allegedly making defamatory statements against him in connection with the alleged corruption of nearly Rs 2,000 crore in the building of classrooms in Delhi's government schools.
The trial court proceedings have already been stayed qua Sirsa, Hans, Verma and Khurana.
Case Title: PepsiCo Inc. & Anr. vs Jagpin Breweries Limited & Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 388
The Delhi High Court has restrained a country-made liquor manufacturer from using the Mirinda mark, including its Hindi transliteration, while passing an interim injunction in favour of PepsiCo in a suit filed by the latter seeking permanent injunction against the infringement.
Justice Jyoti Singh rendered a prima facie finding that the adoption of the mark by Jagpin Breweries was dishonest.
Case Title: Union of India vs Reliance Industries Limited & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 389
The Delhi High Court bench comprising Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani has upheld the 2018 arbitral award passed in favour of Reliance Industries Limited (RIL) in an international commercial arbitration arising from a dispute between the conglomerate and the Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas, Government of India, under a ‘Production Sharing Contract’ (PSC) executed in 2000, involving the exploration and extraction of natural gas in the Krishna-Godavari Basin.
Title: SA v. MA
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 390
The Delhi High Court has observed that a wife can seek production of evidence or documents to prove the charge of adultery levelled by her against the husband in a divorce petition before family court and same will be in consonance with section 14 of Family Courts Act.
“….when a wife seeks the help of the Court for procuring evidence which would go a long way to prove adultery on the part of her husband, the Court must step in; this would be in consonance with Section 14 of the Family Courts Act which gives a leeway to the Court to consider evidence which may be not admissible or relevant under the Indian Evidence Act,” Justice Rekha Palli said.
Title: X & Y v. Z
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 391
The Delhi High Court has directed preservation of guest register, booking invoices, CCTV footage of a hotel based in Goa and phone records of a husband, whose wife has sought divorce on the ground that he was living in adultery with another woman.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma clarified that the records will not be handed over to any of the parties but will be preserved by the concerned third persons and produced before the trial court only in case they are directed to do so at the appropriate stage of trial.
Title: JAQUAR COMPANY PVT LTD v. VILLEROY BOCH AG & ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 392
The Delhi High Court has temporarily restrained a German-based company Villeroy & Boch from manufacturing sanitaryware and other bathroom fitting products under ‘Artis’ mark after Jaquar filed a suit alleging infringement of its trademark ‘Artize’.
Justice Sanjeev Narula observed that not granting interim injunction would gravely prejudice Jaquar and general public, who could be misled into purchasing the products assuming there is an association between the two companies, where none exists.
Case Title: The Indian Hotels Company Limited vs Vivanta Hospitality Private Limited
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 393
The Delhi High Court has permanently restrained a hospitality company from using “Vivanta” mark in a trademark infringement suit filed by Indian Hotels Company Limited, a part of TATA Group of Companies and registered proprietor of “Vivanta” trademark.
Justice Amit Bansal imposed costs of Rs. 6 lakhs on Vivanta Hospitality Private Limited and held that the company used the trademark “Vivanta” in its trade name “Vivanta Vacation Club” which was identical to the mark of the hotels run by the Tata Group.
Case Title: Uno Minda Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner Revenue Department
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 394
The Delhi High Court has directed Delhi Government’s Collector of Stamps to adjudicate the stamp duty payable on documents and communicate it to the concerned parties within 30 days till a specific entry is added in the Delhi Act, 2011 fixing a reasonable time limit for such adjudication.
Justice Prathiba M Singh said that if such adjudication duty involves any complexity or extraordinary circumstances, it can be extended for a maximum period of three months from the date of application.
Title: Azmat Ali Khan v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 395
The Delhi High Court has directed certain news channels including Sudarshan News and social media platforms like YouTube, Google and Twitter to block links of news reports accusing a Muslim man of forcefully converting a woman to Islam.
Justice Prathiba M Singh was hearing a plea moved by one Azmat Ali Khan seeking removal of news items and videos published on online platforms in respect of an FIR lodged against him on April 19 by a Delhi-based woman accusing him of forced religious conversion.
Title: SAKIB AHMED v. STATE NCT OF DELHI
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 396
The Delhi High Court has asked the Delhi State Legal Services Authority to formulate a programme to educate students, potential vulnerable victims and teenagers about criminality of posting intimate content on social media platforms without consent of the person concerned.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma noted that in a large percentage of cases of sexual assault before the court, victims have alleged that inappropriate videos or photographs are made by one of the parties and minor girls are sexually abused under threat about posting them on social media.
Delhi High Court Stays Demolition Of Wazirabad Road Hanuman Temple, Seeks Status Report From Police
Title: PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH SECRETARY & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 397
The Delhi High Court has stayed the demolition of an old two-storey Hanuman temple situated at Loni road of city’s North-East region.
Justice Tushar Rao Gedela directed the authorities to not take any coercive action of removing the temple in terms of a letter issued by Public Works Department on May 03.
“In the meanwhile, no cocrcive action will be taken by any of the respondents (Government Authority) to remove the Hanuman Temple under the letter dated 03.05.2023 issued by PWD till the next date of hearing,” the court said while listing the matter for hearing on August 09.
Title: RAMESH ABHISHEK v. LOKPAL OF INDIA & ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 398
The Delhi High Court has observed that interference in the proceedings pending before Lokpal of India, while exercising writ jurisdiction, ought to be avoided unless there is something palpably wrong or contrary to law.
Justice Prathiba M Singh added that repeated petitions seeking to interdict in the proceedings before the anti corruption body would defeat the purpose of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013.
Case Title: CHARANJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA v. UNION OF INDIA
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 399
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a plea seeking retrospective effect of section 23 of Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 which provides certain circumstances in which transfer of property by an elderly person will be void.
A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad dismissed the plea moved by one Chiranjit Singh Ahluwalia challenging the validity of the provision by contending that its application is restricted only to the gifts of property made by a senior citizen after the commencement of the legislation and not before.
Title: OPENTV INC v. THE CONTROLLER OF PATENTS AND DESIGNS AND ANR
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 400
The Delhi High Court has observed that there is a need to re-look at Section 3(k) of the Patents Act, 1970, in view of growing innovations. Section 3(k) states that a mathematical or business method or computer programe per se or algorithms will be excluded from patentability within the Patents Act.
Justice Prathiba M Singh took note of the 161st Report of the “Review of the Intellectual Property Rights Regime in India” presented by Parliamentary Standing Committee and said that a concern is expressed that a large number of inventions may be excluded from patentability in view of Section 3(k).
Title: SYNTHES GMBH v. CONTROLLER GENERAL OF PATENTS, DESIGNS AND TRADEMARKS AND ANR
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 401
The Delhi High Court has directed an Assistant Controller General Of Patents to undergo a course on passing judicial orders at the Delhi Judicial Academy as it was “seriously disturbed” about an order passed by the officer while rejecting an application for grant of patent.
Justice C Hari Shankar said that the order was nothing less than a “total mockery” of the functions which are vested in the quasi-judicial authorities in the office of the Controller General of Patents.
Title: MICROSOFT TECHNOLOGY LICENSING, LLC v. THE ASSISTANT CONTROLLER OF PATENTS AND DESIGNS
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 402
The Delhi High Court has observed that an invention should not be deemed as a “computer program per se” under the Patents Act merely because it involves algorithms and computer-executable instructions but the decision should be based on the technical advancements it offers and its practical application in solving real-world problems.
Justice Sanjeev Narula said that it is essential for the Indian Patent Office to adopt a more comprehensive approach when assessing computer-related inventions by taking into account technical effects and contributions provided by the invention, rather than solely focusing on implementation of algorithms and computer-executable instructions.
Case Title: Bennett, Coleman and Company Limited & Anr. vs. Planet Media Group & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 403
The Delhi High Court has restrained the use of “Miss India” by Planet Media Group in relation to the beauty pageants organized and promoted by it under the mark “MISS INDIA WORLD” and “TAJ MISS INDIA/MISS INDIA TAJ”.
The bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula remarked that Planet Media had been dishonestly using “MISS INDIA”- the registered mark of Bennett, Coleman and Company, in the title of the beauty pageants organized by the former, including on its websites and social media accounts.
Delhi High Court Refuses To Interfere With Demolition Of Mayapuri Chowk 'Kali Mata Mandir'
Case title: Durga P. Mishra v. Govt of NCT Delhi & anr
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 404
Considering that the religious committee has directed the removal of Kali Mata Mandir at Mayapuri Chowk because it is “unauthorised” and “obstructs the free flow of traffic”, the Delhi High Court has refused to interfere with the demolition of the religious structure to be carried out by the PWD.
Justice Pratibha M .Singh observed that,
"As per the sketch and the photographs which have been produced today, it is clear to the Court that the temple is on Government land. In fact the footpath for pedestrians as also the road has been encroached by the temple which is not permissible. Further, because of the location of the temple i.e. in the corner of two roads, one main road and one arterial road, the smooth flow of the traffic is bound to be impeded".
Case Title: Radnik Exports v. Supertech Realtors Pvt Ltd
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 405
The Delhi High Court has held that an issue of full and final settlement of dispute between the parties will be a question of fact which has to be decided by the arbitrator.
The bench of Justice Navin Chawla held that the Court while exercising powers under Section 11 of the A&C Act cannot determine a disputed question of fact as its jurisdiction is confined to a prima facie conclusion of the existence of the arbitration agreement.
Case Title: S.S. Con-Build Pvt Ltd vs Delhi Development Authority
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 406
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the disputes relating to determination of a lease or the arrears of rent payable in respect of public premises, are questions statutorily mandated to be determined exclusively by the Estate Officer under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (PP Act). Thus, the same are non-arbitrable.
The bench of Justice Yashwant Varma was considering a petition filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) seeking reference of the dispute concerning the computation of ground rent by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) with respect to the plot leased to the petitioner. The petitioner further sought adjudication of the validity of determination of lease by the DDA.
Title: RAJU YADAV v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI and other connected matter
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 407
The Delhi High Court has observed that where the bone ossification test for determining age of a child victim under the POCSO Act opines the age between 15 to 17 years, the court should incline towards considering the lower side on the margin of error.
Observing that such an approach would be in consonance with the objectives of POCSO Act, Justice Jasmeet Singh observed:
“…the Supreme Court in Jarnail Singh case has only leaned towards the benefit of the lower age side to both the child in conflict with law and the minor victim under the POCSO Act. Hence, I am of the view that for determining the age of a child victim under the POCSO Act, where the bone ossification opines her age between 15-17 years, the inclination of the Court should be towards considering the lower side on the margin of error.”
Delhi High Court Quashes Penalty Order Under BMA On Failure Of Dept. To Consider Assessee’s Email
Case Title: Prateek Chitkara Versus JCIT
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 408
The Delhi High Court has quashed the penalty order under the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015 (BMA) for non-consideration of the assessee’s email.
The bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju has observed that, as per the reply filed by the petitioner/assessee, his assertion was that the penalty proceedings should be kept in abeyance, having regard to the fact that the appeal preferred by him on the quantum levy was pending before the CIT (A).
Title: RAJESH PRAKASH LOHANI AND ORS v. THE STATE AND ANR
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 409
The Delhi High Court has asked the Commissioner of Delhi Police to ensure that the investigating officers probing a case are present in court when such a case is taken up for hearing.
Expressing displeasure over the failure of an investigating officer in answering certain queries put to him by the court, Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar said:
“This has become routine invariable practice that the main Investigating Officers who have investigated the case are not appearing and substitute officials are appearing on their behalf and they are not versed with the facts of the cases.”
Title: GAUTAM GAMBHIR v. PUNJAB KESARI & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 410
The Delhi High Court refused to pass any interim injunction order for now in favour of former cricketer and BJP MP Gautam Gambhir in the defamation suit filed by him against Hindi daily newspaper Punjab Kesari and its reporters seeking to restrain them from making any allegedly defamatory publication against him.
Justice Chandra Dhari Singh issued notice on Gambhir’s application seeking interim relief and listed it for hearing in October.
Case Title: Dev Saran v. State
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 411
Observing that “taking a false defence itself adds up as an incriminating circumstance against the appellant”, the Delhi High has upheld the conviction of a person sentenced to life imprisonment under Sections 363/302 of IPC for kidnapping and murdering a one-year-four-month-old child in 2016.
The division bench of Justice Mukta Gupta and Justice Poonam A. Bamba said that non-proving of motive on the part of the accused is not always fatal to the prosecution case. It said that the prosecution has proved that “beyond reasonable doubt” that the appellant had hit the deceased, an infant, against the floor/stairs of the mandir causing injuries on her head and other parts.
Title: VIVEKANANDA INSTITUTE OF PROFESSIONAL STUDIES- TECHNICAL CAMPUS v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. and other connected matters
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 412
Observing that malpractices and backdoor entry into admissions in professional courses is not unknown in society, the Delhi High Court has said that transparent and merit based admission process needs to be encouraged as it encourages students to work hard and “realise their potential in their academic pursuits.”
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav said that such a process also ensures that the “brightest and most talented students” are given the opportunity to study in educational institutions, which promotes excellence.
Case Title: Dhananjay Rathi vs Shree Vasu Steels Private Limited & Ors
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 413
The Delhi High Court has vacated the interim injunction against the use of the mark ‘RATHI’ by entities who were granted licenses by the Rathi Research Centre (RRC), in a trademark suit filed by businessman Dhananjay Rathi for permanent injunction against the infringement of the trademark.
Justice Amit Bansal said that the licensees were permitted users and thus, they cannot be said to be infringing the mark ‘RATHI’ by using the same in respect of their goods.
Title: SAMEER DNYANDEV WANKHEDE v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 414
The Central Bureau of Investigation has told the Delhi High Court that no coercive action will be taken against former Mumbai zonal director of Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) Sameer Wankhede till May 22 in the Aryan Khan bribery case.
The oral assurance was given by CBI’s counsel Nikhil Goel before Justice Vikas Mahajan that the agency will not act against Wankhede till Monday. The court disposed of Wankhede’s plea seeking a free and fair investigation in the case. In the interim, he also sought stay on the summons issued by the probe agency.
Appellate Tribunal Under Senior Citizens Act Should Make All Efforts To Decide Appeals Within One Month: Delhi High Court
Title: SMT KARTARI DEVI v. SH. VINOD KUMAR AND ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 415
The Delhi High Court has observed that the Appellate Tribunal under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 should make all efforts to ensure that section 16(6), which states that appeals must be decided within one month, is implemented in its true spirit to the extent it is practical.
Section 16(6) of the Act states that the Appellate Tribunal shall make an endeavour to pronounce its order in writing within one month of receipt of such appeal.
Title: M EHTESHAM UL HAQUE v. UNION OF INDIA DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCE DEPARTMENT THROUGH ITS SECRETARY & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 416
The Delhi High Court has dismissed the appeal challenging the appointment of Dr. Najma Akhtar as the Vice-Chancellor of Jamia Millia Islamia.
A division bench comprising of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Talwant Singh upheld a single-judge order passed on March 05, 2021, which dismissed a plea challenging her appointment.
The single judge had said that the court cannot sit in appeal over the decision taken by varsity’s Search Committee.
Case Title: Master Arnesh Shaw v. Union of India & Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 417
The Delhi High Court has constituted a five-member committee so that the National Policy for Treatment of Rare Diseases, 2017 can be implemented in an efficient manner and also to ensure that its benefits reach the ultimate patients.
Justice Prathiba M Singh said that there is a need for certain urgent steps to be taken in close coordination between the medical community, providers of therapies for rare diseases and the Governmental agencies.
Title: KASHIF v. NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 418
The Delhi High Court has said that the application for drawing sample of a narcotic drugs or psychotropic substance before the concerned Magistrate under section 52A of NDPS Act should be made within 72 hours.
Justice Jasmeet Singh observed that such an application cannot be moved at the “whims and fancies” of Narcotics Control Bureau, being the prosecuting agency.
Title: RECKITT BENCKISER (INDIA) PVT. LIMITED & ANR. v. WIPRO ENTERPRISES (P) LIMITED
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 419
The Delhi High Court has observed that comparative advertising includes the right to show the competing product but denigration or disparaging rival’s product is impermissible.
“While it is permissible, therefore, to state that the advertised product is superior to the competitor’s, it is not permissible to attribute this superiority to some failing, or fault, in the product of the competitor. An advertisement cannot claim that a competitor’s goods are bad, undesirable or inferior. The subtle distinction between claiming one’s goods to be superior to the others’, and the other’s goods to be inferior to one’s, has to be borne in mind,” Justice C Hari Shankar observed.
Case title: Durga P. Mishra v. Govt of NCT Delhi & anr
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 420
The Delhi High Court has dismissed an appeal challenging a single judge order which refused to interfere with the demolition of 55-year-old Kali Mata Mandir at city’s Mayapuri Chowk to be carried out by the Public Works Department.
A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad also refused to extend the time period for shifting idols and other religious objects from the temple to other temples.
Case Title: Department of Transport, GNCTD vs Star Bus Services Pvt Ltd
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 421
The Delhi High Court has ruled that an arbitral award passed after an inordinate, substantial and unexplained delay would be “contrary to justice and would defeat justice”. Consequently, the same would also be in conflict with the public policy of India.
The bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh was hearing a petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), challenging the arbitral award on the ground that it had been passed after a long and substantial delay of 18 months.
Title: SH. CHHATTER PAL & ORS. v. STATE & ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 422
The Delhi High Court has issued a slew of guidelines to be followed by the mediators while drafting settlement agreements in matrimonial cases and said that such agreements must also be published in Hindi language, in addition to English.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed that the guidance needed by mediators to draft agreements with a degree of coherence, consistency, and unambiguity will come a long way in “healing the lives of those in need” by immediately putting an end to a dispute and further insulating them from future litigation.
Title: AVINASH JAIN versus CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 423
Permitting the CBI to pick up one aspect of the investigation and file a piece-meal charge sheet to defeat the right of an accused to default bail, goes against the mandate of Article 21 of the Constitution, the Delhi High Court has ruled.
The court was hearing a plea challenging the denial of default bail to an accused in a loan fraud case by the CBI Court in February this year.
Case Title: Atul Agarwal vs UOI & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 424
The Delhi High Court has observed that there is a transparent legal mechanism in place to deal with the process of delisting of securities, including a remedy to an investor aggrieved by such delisting, under the Securities Contract (Regulations) Act, 1956.
“Not only this, even in case of compulsory delisting, which is a disciplinary mechanism, an aggrieved investor may file an Appeal before the SAT against the decision of the recognized stock exchange delisting the securities under Section 21A(2) of the SCRA,” a division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela said.
Case Title: Maj Pankaj Rai v. NIIT Ltd
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 425
The Delhi High Court has held that an arbitrator can be removed under Section 14(1)(a) which provides for de jure ineligibility of arbitrator only if his appointment falls within the grounds mentioned under the VII Schedule.
The bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh held that the mandate of the arbitrator on grounds of bias and prejudice cannot be terminated if the test of the Schedule VII is not satisfied as the grounds mentioned therein are the only situations that render an arbitrator de jure ineligible to act as arbitrator.
Title: SMT. CHETNA RATHEE v. CHAHIT KUNDU
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 426
The Delhi High Court has observed that the family courts are expected to not adopt a “hyper-technical approach” and close the right of cross examination of a party in a hurried manner while dealing with matrimonial cases.
Justice Rekha Palli made the observation while setting aside an order passed by the family court rejecting a wife’s application for restoration of her right to cross examine the husband, who had appeared as a prosecution witness.
Title: UNION OF INDIA & ANR. v. SHRI. JOGINDER SINGH
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 427
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the medical claim of a government employee for reimbursement of treatment undertaken in emergency should not be denied merely because the hospital was not empanelled with CGHS facility.
A division bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta observed that the test would be to see whether the claimant had actually undertaken the treatment in emergent condition as advised and if the same is supported by record.
No Sympathy Or Compassion For Employees Submitting Forged Documents To Employer: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Kiran Thakur vs Resident Commissioner Bihar Bhavan
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 428
The Delhi High Court has said that employees who are guilty of submitting forged documents to their employer have to be dealt with in a strict manner. It said such persons are certainly unfit to be employed and no sympathy or compassion can be shown to such an employee.
The bench of Justice Mini Pushkarna made the observation while upholding the termination order of a woman who was dismissed from services by the Bihar Bhavan for submitting a forged class 8th pass certificate.
The court noted that there was a clear finding made by the Enquiry Officer in the departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioner Kiran Thakur that she had failed to prove the authenticity of the Class 8th pass certificate submitted by her.
Title: RITVIK SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 429
The Delhi High Court has directed the Medical Counselling Committee to ensure that the provisions of the Right of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 are followed in admissions to medical courses in future.
The Medical Counselling Committee, an organisation affiliated to Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, is responsible for allotting seats for undergraduate, postgraduate and super-specialty medical and dental courses in government colleges on the basis of a candidate's score in NEET examination.
Title: ANAND v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 430
The Delhi High Court has upheld the constitutional validity of an order passed by the Delhi Government making “resident of Delhi” as a mandatory condition to become eligible for being a civil defence volunteer.
A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela dismissed the plea moved by Advocate Anand challenging the order passed by the Secretary of Delhi Government’s Revenue and Divisional Commissioner on March 18, 2015.
The court said that the authorities are competent to issue necessary directions in respect of the place of residence of a candidate while enrolling a person as a civil defence volunteer.
High Court Sets Aside Delhi Mayor’s Decision For Re-Election Of MCD Standing Committee
Title: KAMALJEET SEHRAWAT v. OFFICE OF LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR OF DELHI & ORS. and other connected matter
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 431
The Delhi High Court has set aside the decision of Mayor Shelly Oberoi to hold re-election for six members of the standing committee of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi.
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav allowed the pleas moved by BJP councillors Kamaljeet Sehrawat and Shikha Roy challenging the notice issued by the Mayor on February 24.
The court has ordered the Mayor to declare the results of the elections which were held on February 24 fortwith.
Title: JUSTICE FOR ALL v. LAXMI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY AND ORS
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 432
The Delhi High Court has said that while there are liberal rules regarding the locus to file a public interest litigation but it must be ensured that “busybodies, wayfarers or officious interveners” with oblique interests are not allowed to waste precious judicial time.
A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad made the observation while dismissing a PIL alleging misuse of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, to mortgage public land allotted to charitable societies under the Government Grants Act, 1895.
Title: DR PRANNOY ROY & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 433
The Delhi High Court has permitted journalists Prannoy Roy and Radhika Roy to travel abroad from July 25 to August 15, observing that they don’t pose a flight risk owing to their professional standing.
“Owing to the professional standing of the petitioners [Prannoy Roy and Radhika Roy] and their ties to India, they don’t pose a flight risk. The petitioners are permitted to travel abrod,” Justice Prathiba M Singh said.
The court disposed of an application filed by the Roys and permitted them to travel abroad, subject to the condition that they will provide details of their itinerary to the Registrar of the court.
Case Title: Carpet Export Promotion Council Versus Union Of India
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 434
The Delhi High Court has held that the summary rejection of the application under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (SVLDR Scheme) without affording the opportunity to be heard would violate the principles of natural justice.
The bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan has observed that in terms of the SVLDR Scheme, the petitioner would be entitled to the waiver of interest and penalty as it had paid the requisite tax prior to the stipulated date. There is no dispute that the amount as estimated to be payable—that is, tax dues less relief—is nil.
Title: RDB AND CO. HUF v. HARPERCOLLINS PUBLISHERS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 435
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday held that late director Satyajit Ray is the first owner of copyright in 1966 Bengali film 'Nayak' and the right to novelize its screenplay is also vested in him.
Justice C Hari Shankar was hearing a suit moved by RDB and Co. HUF, whose 'Karta' R.D. Bansal had commissioned Ray to write and direct the film, seeking to restrain publishing house Harpercollins from novelizing the film written by Bhaskar Chattopadhyay. The book was published in May 2018.
Title: PROF DR SANJEEV BAGAI & ORS. v. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (ENVIRONMENT AND FOREST) & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 436
Observing that it would be “creeping legalised genocide of trees”, the Delhi High Court recently stayed a clause which permits regular pruning of tree branches of girth size upto 15.7cms without reference to the Tree Officer.
“Therefore, to ensure that there is no felling of trees for the asking or of chopping of large branches of trees at will to reduce them to a mere pole-like entity (as noted in the photograph at page 15 supra), clause 5 of the Guidelines shall not be given effect to till the next date [May 24],” Justice Najmi Waziri said in an order passed on May 10.
Delhi High Court Rejects Former IPS Officer Satish Chandra Verma's Plea Against Dismissal Order
Title: Satish Chandra Verma v. UOI & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 437
The Delhi High Court has upheld the order of the Union Government dismissing Gujarat IPS Officer Satish Chandra Verma, who probed Ishrat Jahan encounter case, one month before his retirement.
A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva dismissed the pleas moved by Verma against his termination.
Though initially Verma had challenged the departmental enquiry against him, however, he moved an application before the High Court last year to amend his petition to challenge the dismissal order which was passed during the pendency of the matter.
Advocates Appearing On Criminal Side Can’t Claim A Right To Own Arms License: Delhi High Court
Title: ADV. SHIV KUMAR v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 438
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the lawyers appearing on the criminal side for an accused or the prosecution cannot claim a right to own an arms license as it could result in issuance of such licenses indiscriminately.
“An application by an advocate merely based on the ground of appearance on behalf of the accused persons, in the opinion of this Court, would not be sufficient to grant an arms license,” Justice Prathiba M Singh said in an order passed on May 22.
Case Title: Shruti Sharma v. UOI & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 439
Considering the absence of a recognized National Federation in the field of Karate, the Delhi High Court has directed the Director General of Sports Authority Of India (SAI) to constitute a Selection Committee consisting of players and a senior SAI coach to select a competent team to represent India in the sport of Karate in the upcoming Asian Games.
In the order dated May 18, Justice Tushar Rao Gedela said that the Director General, SAI will constitute a Selection Committee as as stipulated in the letter dated May 15 of Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports, Department of Sports, Government of India “within one week from today”, “which shall, after such constitution proceed with the process of selecting the team as per Indian Olympic Association (IOA) Rules with all earnest”.
Title: RITU CHERNALIA v. AMAR CHERNALIA & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 440
The Delhi High Court has ruled that a daughter in law does not have an indefeasible right in a “shared household” and that the in-laws cannot be excluded from the same.
“Thus, the concept of ‘shared household’ clearly provides that the right of the daughter-in-law in a shared household is not an indefeasible right and cannot be to the exclusion of the in-laws,” Justice Prathiba M Singh said in an order passed on May 22.
Title: VK & ANR versus STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 441
The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR against a husband, who was accused of cruelty by his wife after the couple settled their differences. Besides dissolving the marriage by a decree of divorce under mutual consent, the wife also paid her husband an amount of Rs.12 Lakh towards all his claims.
"Out of the said amount, an amount of Rs.6 lacs was paid by the respondent no.2 [wife] to the petitioner no.1 [husband] at the time of recording of the statement of the first motion on 06.01.2023 and the remaining amount of Rs. 6 lacs was paid at the time of recording of the statement of the second motion, the receipt of which is acknowledged by the petitioner no.1," the court recorded in the order.
Case Title: Roadway Solutions India Infra Limited vs National Highway Authority of India
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 442
The Delhi High Court has ruled that in view of Sections 20A and 41(ha) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (SRA), the courts should grant no injunction relating to infrastructure projects where delay may be caused by such an injunction.
The bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh was dealing with a petition filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) seeking to staying the operation of a ‘Notice of Intention To Terminate’ issued by the National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) to a contractor, on the ground that the latter had failed to carry out its obligations under the Contract in relation to the strengthening/overlaying work on National Highway-48. The petitioner sought to restrain NHAI from flouting a fresh tender with respect to the said project.
Title: DR. RAJENDRA KUMAR PACHAURI v. INDU JAIN & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 443
Managing Director and Editor-in-chief of Republic TV Arnab Goswami has tendered his unconditional apology before the Delhi High Court in a 2016 contempt case moved by former Executive Vice Chairman of TERI R.K. Pachauri against him and others for “fragrant and willful disobedience” of the court’s earlier orders restricting them from publishing certain claims against him.
On May 22, the court discharged Arnab Goswami, Economic Times and Raghav Ohri after accepting their written unconditional apology. Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora also dismissed the plea against Prannoy roy on merits.
Case Title: M/s Vindhya Vasini Construction Co vs M/s Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 444
The Delhi High Court has ruled where the Arbitration Agreement unambiguously provides that in case the stipulated person cannot act as an Arbitrator, the dispute is not to be referred to Arbitration at all, the same reflected the conditional acceptance of Arbitration by the party.
Case Title: Central PWD Engineers Assoc. & Anr. V. UOI & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 445
Observing that government servants "cannot be excluded from the protection" of fundamental rights, the Delhi High Court has set aside the 2019 Memorandum Order (M.O.) that de-recognised the Central PWD Engineers Association. During the pendency of the matter, the Association was granted recognition in 2021.
The decision was not issued with the approval of the Competent Authority, as provided under the CCS (RSA) Rules, 1993, but was only taken at the level of DG, CPWD, the court said.
Title: SANJAY GANDHI MEMORIAL TRUST v. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) & ORS. and other connected matters
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 446
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a bunch of pleas moved by Congress leaders Rahul Gandhi, Sonia Gandhi, Priyanka Gandhi Wadra, Aam Aadmi Party and other charitable trusts challenging the decision of Income Tax authorities to transfer their tax assessments to the central circle.
A division bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma dismissed the petitions and observed that transfer was in accordance with law. However, the court clarified that it did not examine the matter on merits.
Case Title: Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd. & Anr vs Telecom Regulatory Authority Of India
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 447
The Delhi High Court has refused to interfere with Telecom Regulatory Authority of India’s (TRAI) recommendation to impose a penalty of Rs. 1050 crores on Vodafone for failing to provide interconnectivity services to Reliance Jio Infocom Limited under an Interconnection Agreement executed between them.
The bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad noted that both the Central Government’s order dated 29.09.2021, imposing penalty of Rs. 950 Crores on Vodafone Idea, and TRAI’s recommendation dated 21.10.2016, are under challenge before the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT). Further, the TDSAT had already stayed the order passed by Central Government, the court noted.
Agniveer Vayus Being Recruited In Air Force Without Gender Discrimination: Delhi High Court
Title: KUSH KALRA v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 448
The Delhi High Court has said that the “Agniveer Vayus” are being recruited in the Air Force without any gender discrimination.
A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad disposed of a public interest litigation seeking directions to allow recruitment of females for the post of Airmen in group "X" and "Y" trade in all the departments of the Indian Air Force.
Case Title: MR. YUSUFFALI MUSALIAM VEETTIL ABDUL KADER vs MR. SHAJAN SKARIAH & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 449
The Delhi High Court has granted interim relief to MA Yusuff Ali, Chairman of Lulu Group International, by directing Shajan Skariah, the editor of online Malayalam news portal "Marunadan Malayalee", to remove all defamatory content published against the billionaire businessman from social media within 24 hours.
On failure to do so, YouTube has been directed to take down all such defamatory content posted in the Marunadan Malayalee channel against Yusuff Ali and to suspend the operation of the channel . Further, the Court restrained Skariah from using any platform/social media platforms including YouTube for making any comments/remarks in relation to Yusuff Ali.
Victimization Of Trees: Delhi High Court Sentences Two Senior PWD Officers For Contempt Of Court
Case Title: New Delhi Nature Society v. Rajesh Bansal & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 450
The Delhi High Court recently sentenced two senior officers of the Public Works Department to imprisonment after they were held guilty of contempt of court last year for not following judicial orders with regard of protection of trees. The court had earlier directed the PWD to "exercise due caution apropos all its ongoing civil works as well as for all future projects."
Justice Najmi Waziri sentenced the Engineer-in-Chief and Executive Engineer of PWD to four and two months in jail respectively, along with fine of Rs. 2000 each.
Title: INDU KAPOOR v. AU SMALL FINANCE BANK & ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 451
The Delhi High Court has asked the Union Ministry of Finance to install requisite infrastructure for internet connectivity and facilitation of hybrid hearings at Debt Recovery Tribunals (DRTs) in the national capital.
“The court would expect the Administrative Ministry to be mindful of and anticipate the needs of the Bar and the Tribunals in the years to come and install all requisite infrastructure for such needs, including for facilitation of hybrid hearing of cases, as has been directed by the Supreme Court in Sanket Kumar Agarwal (supra),” a division bench of Justice Najmi Waziri and Justice Sudhir Kumar said.
Case Title: Najmus Sehar vs M/s Bombay Marcantile Coop Bank & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 452
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the limitation period for reference of money dispute between the cooperative society and its defaulting member to arbitration, would be determined as per the provisions of Section 85(1)(a) of the Multi State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002 (MSCS Act), and not as per the Limitation Act, 1963.
The bench of Justices Rajiv Shakdher and Girish Kathpalia observed that Section 85(1)(a) of the MSCS Act clearly provides that in such disputes, the limitation period for referral to arbitration would be computed from the date on which the member dies or ceases to be a member of the society. Further, the same is notwithstanding anything contained in the Limitation Act.
Case Title: Shivalaya Construction Co. Pvt Ltd. v. National Insurance Company Ltd
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 453
The Delhi High Court has held that ordinarily the dispute under insurance policy claims would not be referred to arbitration when the reference is limited to quantum of compensation and the insurer disputes liability.
The bench of Justice Prateek Jalan distinguished between a situation wherein the insurer denied the entire liability and where the entire liability is not disputed but only claims under one of the heads is disputed as being outside the scope of reference.
Title: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 454
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation challenging Reserve Bank of India and State Bank of India's notifications that permit exchange of Rs. 2000 currency notes without requirement of any identity proof.
It observed that the Government’s decision to dispense with Rs.2000 banknotes is not a decision towards demonetisation and that the currency shall continue to remain a legal tender.
Case Title: Kishore Kumar v. State
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 455
Observing that the statement of the child victim is of sterling quality, the Delhi Court has dismissed the appeal filed against conviction for aggravated sexual assault and sexual harassment committed on a 7-year-old boy under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO).
Justice Jasmeet Singh said the child with his vocabulary and comprehension was able to describe the incident and had a clear picture in describable words.
"He at 7 years of age, is not expected nor is it possible for a child of his age to recapitulate the harrowing incidents with mathematical precision," said the court.
Delhi High Court Modifies Life Sentence To 20 Years Imprisonment In 2015 Rape And Murder Case
Case Title: Ram Tej v. State
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 456
The Delhi High Court has modified life sentence in a 2015 rape and murder case to rigorous imprisonment for a period of 20 years without remission, while considering the mitigating and extenuating circumstances.
The bench of Justice Mukta Gupta and Justice Poonam A. Bamba noted the mitigating circumstances in the case are that the age of the appellant is 38 years at the moment, he has undergone 8 years of imprisonment and that he has two minor children and a wife to look after and there is no other person in the family to look after them.
Title: DHANPATI @ DHANWANTI v. THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 457
Lawyers are an essential and powerful pillar of judicial adjudicatory process and their duty towards a client has to be respected by all, the Delhi High Court observed.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said that one of the fundamental principles of legal representation is that advocates must not allow personal biases or prejudices to influence or interfere with their professional obligations to their clients which is to uphold the principles of fairness and justice.
Title: RENUKA v. University Grants Commission and Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 458
Observing that women cannot be forced to choose between their right to education and right to exercise reproductive autonomy, the Delhi High Court has granted relief to a female candidate seeking relaxation of her attendance for completing Master of Education (MEd) course after having been denied maternity leave.
“The Constitution envisaged an egalitarian society where citizens could exercise their rights, and the society as well as the State would allow the manifestation of their rights. A compromise was then not sought in the Constitutional scheme. The citizens could not be forced to choose between their right to education and their right to exercise reproductive autonomy,” Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav said.
Case Title: M/s Mahesh Construction vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 459
The Delhi High Court has ruled that a clause in a contract that prohibits payment of interest on delayed payments, does not prohibit the arbitrator from granting interest under Section 31(7) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act). The bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri held that the said stipulation only puts a restriction on the contracting party to claim interest on delayed payments. Since interest is compensatory in nature, the arbitrator’s powers are not curtailed by such narrow clauses in the contract.
Title: Manish Sisodia v. CBI
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 460
The Delhi High Court has dismissed the bail plea of Aam Aadmi Party leader and former Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia in the CBI case alleging corruption in implementation of excise policy for 2021-22.
Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma pronounced the order. The court had reserved the decision on May 11
"…the allegations are very serious in nature that excise policy was formed at the instance of the “South Group” with malafide intention to give undue advantage to them. Such an act points towards the misconduct of the applicant, who was admittedly a public servant and holding highest position," Justice Sharma said.
Title: XXX vs. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 461
Terming it a case with an unusual prayer, the Delhi High Court has dismissed a woman's plea seeking directions for her husband and father-in-law to submit their DNA Samples before a DNA profiling agency in Rohini. The woman along with her two children had approached the court after the father-in-law allegedly "cast doubt" on their identity by claiming that "they are not Mehtas* but Aroras*".
Justice Prathiba M. Singh in the ruling said the prayers in the petition are extremely vague. However, the court added that DNA testing was being sought. "The settled legal position that DNA testing is to be ordered very sparingly and cannot be directed on the basis of allegations such as those that are made in this writ petition," the court said as it refused to grant the prayer.
Title: Daeyoung Jung v. Bar Council of India & Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 462
The Delhi High Court has quashed the Bar Council of India’s decision refusing to consider a South Korean citizen as eligible for enrolment as an advocate with Bar Council of Delhi. The foreign national had moved to India with his parents at the age of 11 and lived here continuously till he graduated from NALSAR University in 2016.
“The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 23.7.2020 is quashed. The Bar Council of India is directed to process the application of the petitioner forthwith in accordance with law,” Justice Yashwant Varma said.
Title: RESILIENT INNOVATIONS PVT. LTD. v. PHONEPE PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 463
The Delhi High Court has allowed the appeals filed by BharatPe from an order dismissing its petitions for cancellation of PhonePe’s trademark.
A division bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Talwant Singh set aside the single judge’s orders dated 11 November 2021.
Case Title: Mayo Foundation For Medical Education & Research vs Bodhisatva Charitable Trust & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 464
Granting interim relief to Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research — a subsidiary of US -based charitable organisation Mayo Clinic, the Delhi High Court has restrained Bodhisatva Charitable Trust from using the trademark “Mayo” or any mark or name deceptively similar to it.
The Indian NGO and its associates have been particularly restrained from using names like Mayo Institute Of Medical Sciences, Mayo Medical Centre, Mayo Medical Centre Private Limited, Mayo Hospital, Mayo Clinic, Mayo School Of Nursing, Mayo Pharmacy and Mayo Gastro-Liver Clinic.
Case Title: Vipin Mittal v. NIA
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 465
Observing that prima facie he was used as an intermediary without knowledge of the smuggled contraband, the Delhi High Court has granted bail to the proprietor of Shree Balaji Trading Company in a case where 102.136 and 0.648 kgs of heroin were intercepted in a truck carrying licorice roots (Mulethi) from Afghanistan at the Attari border in Punjab's Amritsar last year.
"On a prima facie assessment ... this Court is of the considered opinion that there were reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner's guilt may not be proved and further there is no material on record to show that he was likely to commit any offence while on bail," said the court, adding the trial in the matter is likely to take some time, and it would not be prudent to keep the petitioner behind bars for an indefinite period, particularly considering his medical condition.
Case Title: Centre For Policy Research Versus Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 466
The Delhi High Court has stayed the reassessment proceedings against the Centre for Policy Research.
The bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Girish Kathpalia has observed that the entire survey report was not submitted to the petitioner; only the relied-upon portion of the survey report was provided to the petitioner.
The petitioner has assailed the notices dated March 28, 2023, and March 29, 2023, issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Case Title: Ideal Broadcasting India Pvt. Ltd Versus Union Of India
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 467
The Delhi High Court has held that taxpayers filing declarations under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme Rules, 2019 (SVLDR Scheme) cannot quantify the duty under indirect taxes.
The bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Dharmesh Sharma has observed that in terms of Section 121(r) of the Finance Act, 2019, the word "quantified" means a written communication of the amount of duty payable under indirect tax enactment and that a unilateral quantification by the petitioner does not render the assessee eligible to avail the benefit of the scheme since it was the prerogative of the Department to quantify the amount and not the assessee.
Case Title: Prem Kumar Chopra Versus ACIT
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 468
The Delhi High Court has quashed the reassessment notices on the grounds that the department has initiated reassessment by deviating from prior views without any cogent reasoning.
The bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Girish Kathpalia has observed that the reassessment notice and order suffered from two infirmities, namely that it was proceeded on a view inconsistent with the earlier order despite the facts and circumstances being similar, and the ACIT concerned did not support the subsequent divergent view with reasoning.
Case Title: Fayiz Nangaparambil Versus Union Of India
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 469
The Delhi High Court has held that the Show Cause Notice was short of the necessary requirements as it did not contain any specific allegation.
The bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan has observed that the show cause notice is required to set out the relevant material in order to enable the noticee to meaningfully respond to it.
Title: EMECHERE MADUABUCHKWU v. STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 470
The Delhi High Court has said that the trial courts cannot direct foreign nationals be sent to a detention centre while granting them bail in cases lodged against them here.
“In any event what must be clarified is that a Court or Magistrates or a Sessions Court cannot as part of enlarging foreign national on bail can also direct the said person to be sent to a detention centre. The Court is not competent to pass such a direction when granting bail as has been conclusively held in various decisions,” Justice Anish Dayal said.
Case Title: Sony Pictures Animation Inc. vs FLIXHD.CC/ & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 471
In an interim relief to Sony Pictures Animation Inc, the Delhi High Court has restrained several rogue websites from posting and streaming the upcoming film “Spider-Man: Across The Spider-Verse” and “Spider-Man: Into The Spider-Verse”.
"Defendants 1 to 101, as well as all others acting on their behalf, are restrained from posting, streaming, reproducing, distributing or making available to the public, on their websites, or through the internet, in any manner whatsoever, any cinematograph work/content/program in which the plaintiff has copyright, including the films “Spider-Man: Across The Spider- Verse” and “Spider-Man: Into The Spider-Verse”," said the court.
Title: MAJ GEN. V.K. SINGH (RETD.) v. CBI
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 472
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a plea moved by Major General (retired) V.K. Singh against the FIR registered by CBI alleging that he published some classified and secret information about Research and Analysis Wing in his book authored in 2007 after his retirement.
After retiring from service in 2002, Singh published the book titled 'India's External Intelligence- Secrets of Research and Analysis Wing (RAW)' in June 2007. An FIR was then registered by CBI after which a complaint and police report were filed before the trial court in 2008. The case against Singh was initiated by a Deputy Secretary, Government of India, Cabinet Secretariat.
The complaint was filed against Singh and another individual under the Officials Secrets Act, 1923. The grievance of CBI was that the names of officer, location of various places and recommendations of the GOM etc. were disclosed in the book.