Delhi High Court Monthly Digest: October 2024 [Citations 1081 - 1192]

Update: 2024-11-03 12:58 GMT
Click the Play button to listen to article
story

Citations 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1081 to 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1192NOMINAL INDEXJamshed Ansari V. State (GNCT Of Delhi) & Commissioner Of Police, Delhi 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1081NARENDER MEENA v. CBI 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1082SUSHMA v. STATE NCT OF DELHI 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1083Designarch Consultants Pvt Ltd And Anr vs. Jumeirah Beach Resort LLC 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1084Shobha gupta vs bar council of...

Your free access to Live Law has expired
Please Subscribe for unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments, Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.

Citations 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1081 to 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1192

NOMINAL INDEX

Jamshed Ansari V. State (GNCT Of Delhi) & Commissioner Of Police, Delhi 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1081

NARENDER MEENA v. CBI 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1082

SUSHMA v. STATE NCT OF DELHI 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1083

Designarch Consultants Pvt Ltd And Anr vs. Jumeirah Beach Resort LLC 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1084

Shobha gupta vs bar council of Delhi and ors 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1085

Subhana Fashion v. Commissioner Delhi Goods And Service Tax 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1086

THOKCHOM SHYAMJAI SINGH & ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH HOME SECRETARY & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1087

Yves Saint Laurent v. Brompton Lifestyle Brands Private Limited & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1088

Corrtech International Pvt Ltd v. Delhi International Arbitration Center and Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1089

Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. v. Mirador Commercial Pvt Ltd 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1090

Lalit Sharma & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1091

Gateway Investment Management Services Ltd. v. Reserve Bank of India and Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1092

Mustafa Haji v. Union of India and other connected matter 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1093

Suhail Ahmed Khan vs. Union Of India & Ors 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1094

SUKASH CHANDRASHEKHAR @ SUKESH v. STATE GOVT NCT OF DELHI THROUGH DG PRISONS 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1095

NYAYA BHOOMI v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. and other connected matter 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1096

Master Arnesh Shaw v. Union of India & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1097

Gurvinder Singh & Anr. v. GNCTD & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1098

Rakesh Khanna vs. Naveen Kumar Aggarwal & Ors 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1099

MR. AMARDEEP SINGH BEDI v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1100

BABY ISHITA RAWAT v. ADARSH PUBLIC SCHOOL & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1101

STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION & ORS. Versus BHUPENDRA SINGH 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1102

MS. MONIKA v. STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1103

SHRI. SUNIL KALGOUNDA PATIL & ORS v. UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE. AND ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1104

KALAWATI v. THE STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1105

RAM PREET v. STATE 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1106

MANCHU VISHNU VARDHAN BABU ALIAS VISHNU MANCHU v. AREBUMDUM & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1107

RANJEET KUMAR THAKUR v. UOI & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1108

Master Capital Services Limited & Anr. vs. John Doe & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1109

Parikshit Grewal & Ors versus Union of India & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1110

AIR FORCE SPORTS COMPLEX (AFSC) v. LT. GEN S S DAHIYA 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1111

AMIT KUMAR DIWAKAR v. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1112

PayU Payments Private Limited v. The New India Assurance Co Ltd 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1113

LAVA INTERNATIONAL LIMITED Vs MINTELLECTUALS LLP 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1114

Avinesh Kumar vs. Delhi Development Authority And Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1115

FLFL TRAVEL RETAIL LUCKNOW PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1116

St. Stephan College vs. Vikash Gupta And Ors 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1117

UJWAL GHAI v. DELHI HIGH COURT LEGAL SERVICES COMMITTEE (DHCLSC) 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1118

YUDHVEER SINGH YADAV v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INESTIGATION THROUGH SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF INDIA 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1119

STATE v. MANPAL & ORS 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1120

MICHAEL BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. v. NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION AND ORS 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1121

Mriksha Corporation Pvt Ltd v. Absolute Legends Sports Pvt Ltd & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1122

M/s Agarwal Associates (Promoters) Limited v. M/s Sharda Developers 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1123

AMIT KUMAR GUPTA v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1124

Satish Kumar vs. Union of India & Others 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1125

DSSSB and Anr. v. Dinesh Mahawar & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1126

Sunil Kumar Tewatia v Jain Cooperative Bank 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1127

Rajesh Kumar Gupta v. Rajender and Others 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1128

Corrtech International Pvt Ltd v. Delhi International Arbitration Center and Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1129

Emeka Prince Lath vs. State NCT of Delhi 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1130

GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS versus PARMILA DEVI 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1131

SMT USHA DEVI v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1132

RYAN INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL v. CENTRAL INFOMATION COMMISSIONER AND ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1133

SWARANJIT SINGH NARULA SECURITY AGENCY v. NTPC LIMITED 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1134

Hameedullah Akbar@ Faheem Modh Zai vs. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) & Anr 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1135

Devasia Thomas & Anr. vs. Government Of NCT Of Delhi & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1136

Dalmia Family Office Trust & Anr. vs. Getamber Anand & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1137

Wikimedia Foundation v. ANI & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1138

COURTS ON ITS OWN MOTION IN RE: SUICIDE COMMITTED BY SUSHANT ROHILLA, LAW STUDENT OF I.P. UNIVERSITY 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1139

X v. Y 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1140

SANTOSH KUMAR AND ORS. v. STATE THROUGH SHO PS NEW ASHOK NAGAR AND ANR 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1141

STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION AND ANR versus SHUBHAM PAL ANR ORS 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1142

GIRRAJ PRASAD GURJAR versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1143

ICRI CORPORATES PRIVATE LIMITED v. SHOOGLO NETWORK PRIVATE LIMITED (PREVIOUSLY OMG NETWORK PRIVATE LIMITED) 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1144

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. Versus ANAND MOHAN SHARAN & ANR 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1145

Amir Malik vs. Commissioner of GST 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1146

ASHA RANI GUPTA versus RAVINDERA MEMORIAL PUBLIC SCHOOL & ANR 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1147

M/S Sultan Chand and Sons Pvt. Ltd. v. Kartik Sharma 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1148

DR. RAJAN JAISWAL v. M/S SRL LIMITED 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1149

ANITA GUPTA SHARMA v. CHAMBER ALLOTMENT COMMITTEE & OTHERS 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1150

National Highways Authority of India v. Guruvayoor Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1151

OBI OGOCHUKWA STEPHEN v. STATE and other connected matter 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1152

HARKISHANDAS NIJHAWAN v. CPIO, SPECIAL BRANCH OF DELHI POLICE & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1153

NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA V. M/S IRB AHMEDABAD VADODARA SUPER EXPRESS TOLLWAYS PVT. LTD 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1154

Apex Body Leh v. Government of NCT of Delhi & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1155

Shahrukh Pathan v. State 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1156

Punita Bhardwaj vs. Rashmi Juneja 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1157

JHAJHARIA NIRMAN LTD. v. SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAYS 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1158

The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-3 v. Esys Information Technologies Ltd 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1159

UNION OF INDIA & ORS versus JAGDISH SINGH & ORS 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1160

BCC DEVELOPERS & PROMOTERS PVT. LTD v. BHUPENDER SINGH & ANR 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1161

Satwant Singh Sanghera v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1162

KKH FINVEST PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR v. JONAS HAGGARD & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1163

M/S. M.V. OMNI PROJECTS (INDIA) LTD. v. UNION OF INDIA 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1164

LALIT MOHAN v. M/S. NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL CO. FEDERATION OF INDIA LTD. (NAFED) 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1165

Madhu Koda vs. State Thru CBI 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1166

UNION OF INDIA v. MS KRISHNA CONSTRUCTIONS COMPANY 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1167

SPORTA TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD., AND ANR. v. HONG YI F35 AND OTHERS 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1168

AKASH TANWAR v. STATE OF DELHI & ORS and other connected matter 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1169

Ms CP Rama Rao Sole Proprietor v. National Highways Authority Of India 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1170

SK v. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE DELHI POLICE HQ, ITO, DELHI & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1171

Airports Authority of India vs. Delhi International Airport Ltd. & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1172

Shamlaji Expressway Private Limited v. National Highways Authority Of India 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1173

HOME AND SOUL PRIVATE LIMITED V. T.V. TODAY NETWORK LIMITED 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1174

DELHI FIRE WORKS SHOPKEEPERS ASSOCIATION v. DELHI POLLUTION CONTROL COMMITTEE & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1175

M SAMUNDRA SINGH versus UOI 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1176

ANAND MISHRA v/s THE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1177

PEC LIMITED v. ADM ASIA PACIFIC TRADING PTE. LTD. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1178

M/S STAR SHARES & STOCK BROKERS LTD. V. PRAVEEN GUPTA & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1179

UOI vs. COL (TS) SHYAMA NAND JHA (RETD.) 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1180

PANKAJ KUMAR TIWARI v. ED and other connected matter 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1181

NARESH KUMAR BAJAJ v. BUNGE INDIA PVT. LTD. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1182

Civil And Sessions Court Stenographers Association (Regd) & Anr vs. Shri Vijay Kumar Dev 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1183

Ram Niwas versus Commissioner of Central Goods and Services Tax & Anr 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1184

Visuvanathan Rudrakumaran vs. The Union Of India & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1185

Shadab Ahmad v State of NCT of Delhi 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1186

Union of India vs. OCL Iron and Steel Limited 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1187

M/s Jain Cement Udyog (Through Its Proprietor Sh. Sanjay Jain) v. Sales Tax Officer Class-II 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1188

SOCIAL JURIST, A CIVIL RIGHTS GROUP V/s MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1189

Vaibhav Jain vs. Directorate Of Enforcement & Connected Matter 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1190

INTERNATIONAL AIR TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION V.SPRING TRAVELS PVT LTD 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1191

M/S INNOVATIVE FACILITY SOLUTIONS PVT LTD v. M/S AFFORDABLE INFRASTRUCTURE 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1192

Rule 86A Of CGST Rules 2017 Does Not Imposes Any Burden To Be Discharged By Taxpayer To Be Entitled To Input Tax Credit: Delhi HC

Case Title: Best Crop Science Pvt. Ltd. versus Principal Commissioner, CGST Commissionerate, Meerut and ors

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1079

The Delhi High Court held that the amount of debit to be disallowed from the Electronic Credit Ledger (ECL) should not be more than the amount of the Input tax credit (ITC), which is believed to have been fraudulently availed by taxpayer.

"There May Be Some Intelligence We Don't Know": Delhi High Court On PIL Against Singhu Border Blockade, Asks Police Commissioner To Consider

Title: Shankar Mor & Ors v. Union of India & Anr

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1080

The Delhi High Court has closed a public interest litigation seeking removal of blockade on National Highway 44 at Singhu Border, arguing that inconvenience is being caused to the public at large.

A division bench comprising Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela asked the petitioners, three individuals, to file a representation to the Commissioner of Delhi Police which has been directed to be treated as expeditiously as possible.

Plea Challenges Delhi Govt's Decision To Include 'Suspect' Column In Chargesheet, High Court Directs Principal Secy To Decide

Case Title: Jamshed Ansari V. State (GNCT Of Delhi) & Commissioner Of Police, Delhi

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1081

The Delhi High Court has directed Delhi government's Principal Secretary (Home) to consider as representation a PIL challenging the legality of Column 12 included in Police Charge Sheet, for inclusion of details of 'suspect' in a criminal case.

Delhi High Court Denies Bail To Former Tihar Jail Official In Inmate Ankit Gujjar Murder Case

Title: NARENDER MEENA v. CBI

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1082

The Delhi High Court has recently denied bail to a former Deputy Superintendent of Tihar jail in the murder case of inmate Ankit Gujjar, a 29-year old alleged gangster, who was found dead inside the prison in 2021.

Being Elderly Or Infirm Doesn't Automatically Entitle A Woman Directly Involved In Offence To Anticipatory Bail: Delhi High Court

Title: SUSHMA v. STATE NCT OF DELHI

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1083

The Delhi High Court has recently observed that merely being elderly or infirm does not entitle a woman to be released on anticipatory bail.

Justice Amit Mahajan made the observation while denying pre-arrest bail to a mother-in-law in a dowry death case concerning her daughter-in-law.

Delhi High Court Allows Settlement Between Dubai Based Jumeirah And NOIDA Developer Who Used 'Burj' Trademark In Its Projects

Case title: Designarch Consultants Pvt Ltd And Anr vs. Jumeirah Beach Resort LLC

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1084

The Delhi High Court has agreed to a settlement agreement between Jumeirah Beach Resort LLC, Dubai's international hotel chain having Burj Al Arab' as its flagship hotel and a real estate developer who used the 'Burj' mark and logo in its projects.

Following SC Order On Women Reservation, Delhi High Court Postpones Elections For DHCBA, District Bar Associations To December 13

Title: Shobha gupta vs bar council of Delhi and ors

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1085

The Delhi High Court has postponed to December 13 the elections for the Executive Committee of Delhi High Court Bar Association (DHCBA) and all district court bar associations in the national capital.

A full bench comprising Chief Justice Manmohan, Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Yashwant Varma passed the order on an application filed by Secretary of DHCBA seeking postponement of the upcoming elections which were scheduled for October 19.

Non-Payment Of Tax To Govt For 3 Months After Due Date Not Ground To Cancel GST Registration: Delhi HC

Case title: Subhana Fashion v. Commissioner Delhi Goods And Service Tax

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1086

The Delhi High Court has made it clear that non-payment of dues in the form of tax, interest or penalty, by a registered entity to the account of Central/State Government beyond a period of three months after due date, is not a ground to cancel its registration under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act.

UAPA: Delhi High Court Rejects NIA's Preliminary Objection To Maintainability Of Plea Challenging Arrest Of UNLF 'Army Chief', Associates

Title: THOKCHOM SHYAMJAI SINGH & ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH HOME SECRETARY & ORS.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1087

The Delhi High Court has rejected the preliminary objection raised by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) regarding the maintainability of the petition filed by self-styled Army Chief of the United National Liberation Front (UNLF) and his two associates challenging their arrest in a UAPA case.

Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani said that the petition is maintainable and entertained the same for arguments on merits of the case.

Appointment Of Arbitrator Not Unilateral If Consent Of Non-Signatory Not Taken: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Yves Saint Laurent v. Brompton Lifestyle Brands Private Limited & Anr.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1088

The Delhi High Court has held that the consent of a non-signatory to arbitral proceedings is not required for the appointment of the arbitrator.

The bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar, while hearing a Section 14 petition challenging the tribunal's jurisdiction, has held that the appointment of an arbitrator without the consent of a non-signatory would not be an unilateral appointment. The requirement to reach a consensus for the appointment of an arbitrator under Section 21 applies to the parties to the arbitration agreement and not a non-signatory who is included in the arbitral proceedings.

Application Of MSMED Act And Arbitral Tribunal's Jurisdiction Over Contractual Disputes Must Be Determined By Arbitral Tribunal,Not By Court In Writ Jurisdiction: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Corrtech International Pvt Ltd v. Delhi International Arbitration Center and Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1089

The Delhi High Court has clarified the legal position of the intersection between the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSMED Act) and the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

The bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula, while hearing a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking to quash a notice requesting the parties to file their Statement of Claims (SoC) and subsequent communications, has clarified the legal position concerning the period of limitation under Section 18(5), the registration of an MSME supplier following the issuance of purchase order and the impact on MSME Claims.

Three-Arbitrator Tribunal To Become Sole Arbitrator Tribunal On Failure Of Party To Appoint Its Arbitrator- Delhi High Court To Examine

Case Title: Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. v. Mirador Commercial Pvt Ltd

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1090

The Delhi High Court has resolved to examine an arbitration clause in the General Conditions of Contract (GCC), if the same is affected by the line of judgments following Perkins Eastman Architects DPC v. HSCC (India) Ltd, Bharat Broadband Network Ltd v. United Telecoms Ltd and Haryana Space Application Centre (HARSAC) v. Pan India Consultants Pvt Ltd.

District Bar Associations Election: Delhi High Court Exempts Taxation Bar Association Members From Court Appearance Requirement

Case Title: Lalit Sharma & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1091

The Delhi High Court exempted members of Taxation Bar Association from the Court appearance requirement.

The Bench, consists of Chief Justice Manmohan and Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Yashwant Varma, noted that, in light of the judgment in Lalit Sharma and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. [W.P.(C) 10363/2021], dated 19th March 2024, a majority of the advocate members of the Delhi Tax Bar Association, despite active practice, have now become ineligible to contest, vote, or participate in the election process for the selection of the Executive Committee, scheduled for 19th October 2024.

Adjudicating Authority Decides Fairness And Reasonableness While Approving Resolution Plan, High Court Cannot- Delhi High Court

Case Title: Gateway Investment Management Services Ltd. v. Reserve Bank of India and Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1092

In a significant judgement, the Delhi High Court affirmed the commercial wisdom of the committee of creditors (CoC). The case was pertaining to rejection of the resolution plan proposed by the petitioner despite offering the highest bid in e-auction in a Corporate Insolvency resolution Plan (CIRP) of Helio Photo Voltaic Pvt. Ltd. (Corporate Debtor).

Climate Activist Sonam Wangchuk, His Associates From Ladakh Released And Set Free: SGI Tushar Mehta Tells Delhi High Court

Title: Mustafa Haji v. Union of India and other connected matter

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1093

The Delhi High Court was informed that climate activist Sonam Wangchuk and his associates from Ladakh, who were allegedly detained while marching towards the national capital for raising certain demands, have been released and set free.

In view of the submission, the court disposed of two petitions filed by Mustafa Haji and Azad seeking the release of Wangchuk and his associates.

File Affidavit On Jama Masjid's Status As Protected Monument: Delhi High Court To ASI

Case title: Suhail Ahmed Khan vs. Union Of India & Ors (W.P.(C) 7869/2014 & CM APPL. 18462/2014 & Connected matter)

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1094

The Delhi High Court has directed the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) to file an affidavit about the status of Jama Masjid as a protected monument, its current occupants, the maintenance activities being undertaken by ASI and the revenues generated and utilized.

A Division Bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Amit Sharma issued this direction in relation to petitions that sought to declare the Jama Masjid as a 'Protected Monument' as well as a 'World Heritage Site'.

Delhi High Court Rejects Sukesh Chandrashekhar's Plea Against His 'Transfer' From Mandoli Jail To Any Other Prison

Title: SUKASH CHANDRASHEKHAR @ SUKESH v. STATE GOVT NCT OF DELHI THROUGH DG PRISONS

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1095

The Delhi High Court has recently rejected the prayer of alleged conman Sukesh Chandra Shekhar, booked in an extortion case, seeking directions upon the jail authorities not to transfer him from Mandoli jail to any other prison in the national capital.

The Delhi High Court has recently rejected the prayer of alleged conman Sukesh Chandra Shekhar, booked in an extortion case, seeking directions upon the jail authorities not to transfer him from Mandoli jail to any other prison in the national capital.

Delhi High Court Calls For 'Public Awareness Campaign' To Inform Citizens How Feeding Is Not Benefitting Monkeys

Title: NYAYA BHOOMI v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. and other connected matter

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1096

The Delhi High Court has recently told the civic agencies in the national capital what they must do to make the citizens here aware of how feeding is not benefitting the monkeys.

A division bench comprising Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela observed that feeding harms animals in various ways by increasing their dependence on humans and reducing the natural distance between wild animals and humans.

Delhi High Court Directs Centre To Constitute National Rare Diseases Fund, Orders Mandatory Monthly Meetings To Monitor Disbursement Of Funds

Case Title: Master Arnesh Shaw v. Union of India & Anr.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1097

The Delhi High Court has directed the Union Government to constitute a “national rare diseases fund” and ordered mandatory monthly meetings to monitor disbursement of funds and to identify delays, if any.

Justice Prathiba M Singh directed that the National Rare Disease Committee (NRDC) constituted by the Court on May 15, 2023, shall continue to function for a further period of five years.

No Prohibition On 'Posthumous Reproduction' In Absence Of A Spouse, Consent Of Egg Or Sperm Owner Should Be Demonstrated: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Gurvinder Singh & Anr. v. GNCTD & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1098

The Delhi High Court has ruled that there is no prohibition under the prevalent Indian law against posthumous reproduction, in absence of the spouse, if the consent of the egg or sperm owner is demonstrated.

Posthumous reproduction is the process of using a deceased person's gametes to create a child. The procedure is not regulated by Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021 or the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021 or any guidelines or rules.

Consumer Commission Empowered To Issue Arrest Warrant Against Director For Company's Failure To Comply With Orders: Delhi High Court

Case title: Rakesh Khanna vs. Naveen Kumar Aggarwal & Ors

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1099

The Delhi High Court has observed that the issuance of arrest warrant by a Consumer Commission to a Director of a company, for the Company's failure to comply with the Commission's order, is not a determination of the director's personal liability, but a procedural mechanism to ensure that the company complies with the orders.

Pendency Of Criminal Case Can't Disqualify Individual From Exercising Right To Long Term Opportunities Abroad: Delhi HC

Title: MR. AMARDEEP SINGH BEDI v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1100

The Delhi High Court has observed that mere pendency of a criminal case does not automatically disqualify an individual from exercising their right to seek long-term opportunities abroad.

Justice Sanjeev Narula said that denying Police Clearance Certificate (PCC) to an individual due to mere pendency of FIRs, without any conviction or finding of guilt, constitutes an unreasonable restriction.

Delhi High Court Asks DoE To Consider Framing Guidelines To Correct Typographical Errors In EWS Admission Forms

Title: BABY ISHITA RAWAT v. ADARSH PUBLIC SCHOOL & ANR.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1101

The Delhi High Court has asked the Delhi Government's Directorate of Education (DoE) to consider framing guidelines to correct the typographical errors in admission forms committed by those applying for admissions under the EWS category in private unaided schools.

Tattoo Scar Should Not Be The Basis For Disqualification, Opportunity Must Be Given To The Candidate To Remove It, Delhi High Court Reiterates

Case Title: STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION & ORS. Versus BHUPENDRA SINGH

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1102

A Division Bench of Delhi High Court comprising of Justices Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Girish Kathpalia reiterated that any person with a tattoo should be given an opportunity to have the tattoo removed in a time bound manner and a scar from the tattoo should not be a reason to disqualify such candidate.

Illegal Sale Of Liquor Contrary To Delhi Excise Act Big Menace, Needs To Be Curbed With Heavy Hand: High Court

Title: MS. MONIKA v. STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ORS.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1103

The Delhi High Court has recently observed that “bootlegging and illegal” sale of liquor, contrary to the provisions of Delhi Excise Act, is a big menace to the society and needs to be curbed with a heavy hand.

Revised Promotion Ratio Can't Be Applied Retroactively As Reversal Of Benefits Received By Promoted Officers Causes Administrative Disruption: Delhi High Court

Title: SHRI. SUNIL KALGOUNDA PATIL & ORS v. UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE. AND ORS.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1104

A division bench of the Delhi High Court comprising of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait & Justice Girish Kathpalia held that the revised promotion ratio can't be applied retroactively but prospectively as reversal of benefits received by already promoted officers would cause administrative disruptions.

Delhi High Court Rejects Woman's Plea Seeking FIR Into Daughter's Death In 2013 Over Alleged Political Conspiracy Involving Arvind Kejriwal

Title: KALAWATI v. THE STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1105

The Delhi High Court has recently rejected a petition filed by a mother seeking registration of FIR into her daughter's death in 2013 pursuant to an alleged political conspiracy involving former Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, Kumar Vishvas and other Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) workers.

Justice Neena Bansal Krishna dismissed the plea filed by Kalawati who challenged the trial court order passed last year rejecting her application seeking registration of FIR under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

Delhi High Court Issues Directions To Prevent Delay In Releasing Compensation To POCSO Survivors

Title: RAM PREET v. STATE

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1106

The Delhi High Court has issued directions to prevent delay in releasing compensation by the Delhi State Legal Services Authority (DSLSA) to the survivors in POCSO cases.

A division bench comprising of Justice Prathiba M Singh and Justice Amit Sharma that there is clearly a disconnect between the POCSO Courts and the concerned Delhi State Legal Service Authorities on the issue.

Delhi High Court Passes John Doe Order To Protect Personality Rights Of Indian Actor And Producer Vishnu Manchu

Title: MANCHU VISHNU VARDHAN BABU ALIAS VISHNU MANCHU v. AREBUMDUM & ORS.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1107

The Delhi High Court has recently passed a john doe order to protect the personality rights of Indian actor and film producer Vishnu Manchu who is known for his work primarily in Telugu cinema.

Justice Mini Pushkarna was dealing with Vishnu's suit seeking protection of his name, voice, image, likeness and all other elements of his personality. The suit was filed against the unauthorized use of his personality elements, alleging that the same were used by third parties which was likely to create confusion and deception amongst the public.

Delhi High Court Directs District Courts To Ensure Recording Advocates' Appearances In Order Sheets, Calls For 'Drop Box', 'Chat Box' System

Title: RANJEET KUMAR THAKUR v. UOI & ORS.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1108

The Delhi High Court has recently directed all the district courts in the national capital to ensure that the appearances of advocates are properly recorded in the order sheets.

Justice Sanjeev Narula directed the Principal District and Sessions Judge (Headquarters) to issue necessary instructions to all District Courts on the issue.

Delhi High Court Passes John Doe Order To Protect Trademark Of Master Capital Services, Asks Meta To Block WhatsApp Accounts Misusing Mark

Case title: Master Capital Services Limited & Anr. vs. John Doe & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1109

The Delhi High Court has issued an ex-parte temporary injunction against unidentified individuals, restraining them from using the trademark 'Master Trust', owned by Master Capital Services Limited.

The Court also directed Meta, Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology and Department of Telecommunications to block WhatsApp accounts of groups, which are claiming association with Master Capital and asking public to invest funds.

Litigants Must First Approach Administrative Tribunal In Matters Even Regarding Irregularities Concerning Recruitment To Posts Under Union And Not High Court Directly: Delhi High Court

Case Tittle: Parikshit Grewal & Ors versus Union of India & Anr.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1110

A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising of Justices C. Hari Shankar and Sudhir Kumar Jain held that the Administrative Tribunal has the jurisdiction, powers and authority exercised by all the courts in relation to recruitment and matters in relation to recruitment to a civil post under section 14(1) of the Administrative Tribunals Act

Air Force Sports Complex Not A 'Public Authority' Under RTI Act: Delhi High Court

Title: AIR FORCE SPORTS COMPLEX (AFSC) v. LT. GEN S S DAHIYA

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1111

The Delhi High Court has observed that the Air Force Sports Complex (AFSC) is not a 'public authority' under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) on the ground that the government does not exercise significant control over AFSC and its operations are not dependant on funding from the government.

Delhi High Court Dismisses Plea To Disqualify BCI Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra From Rajya Sabha, Imposes ₹25K Costs

Title: AMIT KUMAR DIWAKAR v. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY & ORS.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1112

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition seeking to disqualify Bar Council of India (BCI) Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra from the Rajya Sabha, with costs of Rs. 25,000.

Justice Sanjeev Narula rejected the plea moved by Advocate Amit Kumar Diwakar, who alleged that Mishra, while holding the office of Chairman of BCI, which is a statutory body, cannot simultaneously serve as a sitting member of the Rajya Sabha.

Repudiation Of Claims Making Dispute Non-Arbitrable Is For Arbitral Tribunal To Adjudicate Upon, Not Courts At Section 11 Stage: Delhi High Court

Case Title: PayU Payments Private Limited v. The New India Assurance Co Ltd

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1113

The Delhi High Court, following the law laid down in SBI General Insurance Co Ltd v. Krish Spinning, has held that the aspects of non-arbitrability of a claim are for the arbitral tribunal to adjudicate, and courts at Section 11 stage cannot examine the same.

While Adjudicating On Challenges Against Arbitral Tribunals' Orders U/S 17 Of A&C Act, Court Not Strictly Bound By O.38 & O.39 CPC: Delhi HC

Case Title: LAVA INTERNATIONAL LIMITED Vs MINTELLECTUALS LLP

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1114

The Delhi High Court bench comprising Justice Prateek Jalan has held that in orders passed by the arbitral tribunal under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the court is not bound by the principles underlying Order XXXVIII and XXXIX of the Civil Procedure Code.

Worshipper Cannot Claim Injunction To Stop Temple Demolition On Govt Land Without Demonstrating Any Personal Interest: Delhi High Court

Case title: Avinesh Kumar vs. Delhi Development Authority And Anr.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1115

The Delhi High Court has observed that a 'worshipper of a temple', who has no personal interest over the temple property, cannot be granted a relief to stop the demolition of the temple built illegally on a land owned by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA).

Delhi High Court Sets Aside Arbitral Award Due To Failure Of Arbitrator To Disclose Conflict, Non-Supply Of Documents

Case Title: FLFL TRAVEL RETAIL LUCKNOW PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA & ANR.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1116

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Prateek Jalan has held that the duty of arbitrators of disclosure of any conflicts under Section 12 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is mandatory and continuous throughout the proceedings. The court noted that disclosure must be in writing and a verbal disclosure does not suffice. The court also held that there was a violation of section 18 of the Act as the party has not had an opportunity to consider and respond to submissions on evidence furnished by the opposing party.

St Stephen's PG Seats Allocation: Delhi High Court Holds DU Officials Guilty Of 'Wilful Disobedience'

Case title: St. Stephan College vs. Vikash Gupta And Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1117

The Delhi High Court has found Delhi University (DU) officials to be in "wilful disobedience" of its order, where the DU was directed to allocate proportionate number of PG seats to St. Stephan College.

Legal Internships Do Not Amount To Active Legal Practice: Delhi High Court

Title: UJWAL GHAI v. DELHI HIGH COURT LEGAL SERVICES COMMITTEE (DHCLSC)

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1118

The Delhi High Court has recently observed that legal internships undertaken as law students do not amount to “active legal practice” after being enrolled as an advocate.

“Internships undertaken as part of legal education, though valuable in providing practical exposure, do not satisfy the professional experience requirement for practicing law,” Justice Sanjeev Narula observed.

Withholding Bail When Court Deemed It Fit To Release Accused Amounts To Punishment: Delhi High Court

Title: YUDHVEER SINGH YADAV v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INESTIGATION THROUGH SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1119

The Delhi High Court has held that where a Court deems it fit to release an accused on merits, withholding bail amounts to a punishment.

“Therefore, if a Court on merits deems it fit to release an accused on bail, withholding the aforesaid relief will amount to be considered as a punishment,” Justice Chandra Dhari Singh said.

Prosecution, Legal Departments Must Exercise Due Diligence Before Initiating Cases: Delhi High Court On Frivolous Litigation

Title: STATE v. MANPAL & ORS

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1120

The Delhi High Court has observed that the prosecution and Delhi Government's Department of Law & Legislative Affairs must exercise due diligence before initiating cases and that legal process must not be misused through frivolous litigation.

Forum Shopping Is Abuse Of Legal Process And Cannot Be Condoned: Delhi High Court

Case title: MICHAEL BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. v. NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION AND ORS

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1121

The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma has held that forum shopping, i.e., such conduct, where the petitioner attempts to choose a forum favourable to them after having already approached the appropriate forum, is an abuse of legal process and cannot be condoned.

Delhi High Court Stays Decision Of Apex Council Which Altered Result Of 'Legends League' Cricket Match After Being Declared

Case Title: Mriksha Corporation Pvt Ltd v. Absolute Legends Sports Pvt Ltd & Anr.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1122

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Sachin Datta, while hearing a Section 9 petition under the A&C Act, has granted interim relief to the petitioner by staying the communication of Event Technical Committee (ETC) and the Apex Council which allowed the result of a cricket match to be altered after the result has been announced.

Article 227 Cannot Be Invoked When Interrogatories & Discoveries Allowed By Tribunal Are Not In Nature Of Fishing Inquiry: Delhi HC

Case Title: M/s Agarwal Associates (Promoters) Limited v. M/s Sharda Developers

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1123

The Delhi High Court has held that the scope of review under Article 227 is extremely narrow; the same cannot be invoked when the interrogatories and discoveries allowed by the tribunal have a co-relation and nexus with the subject matter of the dispute.

Annual Performance Appraisal Report Determining Career Progression Must Be Written By Superior Officers With Impartiality: Delhi High Court

Title: AMIT KUMAR GUPTA v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1124

A division bench of the Delhi High Court comprising of Justice Navin Chawla & Justice Shalinder Kaur, held that annual performance appraisal report determining career progression and promotions must be written by superior officers with objectivity, impartiality, fairness and free from any prejudice.

Delhi High Court Orders Reinstatement Of CISF Officer Dismissed After Alleged Conspiracy Involving Sexual Harassment

Case Name: Satish Kumar vs. Union of India & Others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1125

A division bench of Delhi High Court comprising Justice Rekha Palli and Justice Shalinder Kaur ordered the reinstatement of Satish Kumar, a Sub-Inspector (SI) with the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), after finding that his dismissal following accusations of conspiring with a female constable in a sexual harassment case was unjustified. The court re-evaluated the evidence presented in the departmental inquiry due to the unique facts of the case, where the main charge against Kumar was tied to a superior officer who had himself been punished for sexual misconduct.

SC Candidates Holding Different States' Certificate Entitled To Claim Job Reservation In Union Territory, Delhi High Court Reiterates

Case Title: DSSSB and Anr. v. Dinesh Mahawar & Others.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1126

Recently, a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising of Justice C Hari Shankar and Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain heard a petition impugning the Judgment by Central Administrative Tribunal (“CAT”) which allowed the respondents' Original Applications (“OAs”) and held that the respondents were entitled to be treated as Scheduled Caste candidates based on the certificates held by them, though the certificate was issued outside Delhi.

Labour Court And Registrar Of Cooperative Societies Have Concurrent Jurisdiction For Disputes Relating To Disciplinary Action: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Sunil Kumar Tewatia v Jain Cooperative Bank

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1127

Recently, a Single Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising of Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju heard a petition impugning the award passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge. By the Impugned Award, the complaint filed by the Petitioner on the applicability of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, was dismissed by the Labour Court, in view of the specific bar as placed by the provisions of Section 70(1)(b) of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 2003 [“DCS Act”].

Principle Of Judicial Non-Interference Is Fundamental To Both Domestic & International Arbitral Proceedings: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Rajesh Kumar Gupta v. Rajender and Others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1128

The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad observed that it is well settled that the principle of judicial non-interference in arbitral proceedings is fundamental to both domestic as well as international commercial arbitration and that the Arbitration Act is self contained code. In this case, a petition under section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act (Act) was filed seeking appointment of a sole arbitrator.

"Any Objection Regarding Non-Applicability Of MSMED Act Can Be Decided By Arbitral Tribunal U/S 16 Of A&C Act": Delhi High Court

Case Title: Corrtech International Pvt Ltd v. Delhi International Arbitration Center and Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1129

The Delhi High Court division bench of Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Tushar Rao Gadela, while hearing an appeal, has upheld the order passed by a single-judge bench wherein it was held that the question of whether an entity was an MSME at the relevant time was to determined by the tribunal under section 16 of A&C Act and not the writ court.

Notice U/S 50 NDPS Act 'Not Necessary' For Search Of Bag As It Was Separate From Accused's Person: Delhi High Court

Case title: Emeka Prince Lath vs. State NCT of Delhi

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1130

While hearing a bail plea of a man booked for offences under the NDPS Act, the Delhi High Court said that the requirement of Section 50 notice under the NDPS Act would not be "necessary" in respect of the search of a bag which was thrown by the accused in the case, as the bag was separate from the accused's body.

The high court however noted that when the accused's personal search was conducted the provisions of Section 50 had been complied with. For context, Section 50 of the NDPS Act states the conditions under which search of persons shall be conducted.

Anganwadi Workers Can Earn From Other Sources As Recompense From Anganwari Work Is Meagre: Delhi High Court

Case Title: GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS versus PARMILA DEVI

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1131

A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justices Hari Shankar and Sudhir Kumar Jain has held that Anganwadi workers can have a source of additional income apart from Anganwari work. The Bench stated that it is not possible for Anganwadi workers to sustain themselves or their families from the salary earned by them as Anganwari workers and having more sources of income won't be unnatural.

Delhi High Court Grants Compassionate Allowance To Widow Of Dismissed Employee

Title: SMT USHA DEVI v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1132

A Division Bench Delhi High Court consisting of Justices C. Hari Shankar and Dr. Sudhir Kumar Jain ruled in favour of Usha Devi, directing the Union of India to grant her compassionate allowance under Rule 41 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. This decision overturned the rejection of her plea by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), which had previously denied her request following the dismissal of her husband from government service.

Personal Information Of Employees Like Service Records, Copies Of Promotion & Financial Benefits Can't Be Disclosed Under RTI Act: Delhi High Court

Title: RYAN INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL v. CENTRAL INFOMATION COMMISSIONER AND ORS.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1133

A single judge bench of the Delhi High Court comprising of Justice Sanjeev Narula, while deciding writ petition held that the personal information of employees like service records, copies of promotion & financial benefits can't be disclosed under the RTI Act.

Delhi High Court Allows Extension Of Arbitrator's Mandate Despite Post-Expiry Filing U/S 29A Of Arbitration Act

Case title: SWARANJIT SINGH NARULA SECURITY AGENCY v. NTPC LIMITED

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1134

The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Prateek Jalan has held that a petition filed under Section 29A of the Act is maintainable even if it is filed after the expiry of the arbitrator's mandate.

Further, the court observed that this question is still pending before the Supreme Court due to a conflict of decisions of different High Courts, the view taken by Delhi High Court has not been stayed.

Continuation Of Criminal Proceedings Will Be Exercise In Futility: Delhi High Court Quashes FIR Upon Amicable Settlement

Case title: Hameedullah Akbar@ Faheem Modh Zai vs. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) & Anr

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1135

The Delhi High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against an Afghan national for offences including rape and forgery of valuable security on the ground that the accused and the complainant, a US national, have amicably compromised and the complainant no longer wished to pursue the case.

It stated that the continuation of criminal proceedings would be an exercise in futility as even the complainant did not support the prosecution's case.

Delhi High Court Directs BSES To Pay Ex-Gratia Sum Of ₹10 Lakhs To Parents Of Boy Who Died Due To Electrocution

Case title: Devasia Thomas & Anr. vs. Government Of NCT Of Delhi & Anr.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1136

The Delhi High Court has awarded an ex-gratia compensation of Rs. 10 lakhs to the parents of an 18-year-old boy who passed away due to electrocution. It directed the BSES Yamuna Power Ltd to pay compensation to the parents despite finding that the negligence on the part of BSES in maintaining the electric lines could not be prima facie established.

Baseless Allegations Against Arbitrators Must Be Dealt With Strictly, Arbitral Tribunals Can Hold Party In Contempt: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Dalmia Family Office Trust & Anr. vs. Getamber Anand & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1137

The Delhi High Court division bench comprising Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Amit Sharma has held that Arbitral Tribunals have the same power as a Civil Court in dealing with contempt against itself as per sections 17(2) and 27(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The court held that baseless allegations against Arbitrators must be dealt with strictly. It observed that the integrity of arbitration cannot be made fragile by giving room to unsubstantiated or speculative allegations against arbitrators.

'Prima Facie Contemptuous': Delhi High Court Orders Take Down Of Wikipedia Page On Pending Defamation Suit By ANI

Title: Wikimedia Foundation v. ANI & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1138

The Delhi High Court has ordered take down of a page on Wikipedia on the pending proceedings about a Rs. 2 crores defamation suit filed by news agency Asian News International (ANI) against the platform.

A division bench comprising of Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela noted that adverse comments were made against the single judge on the page which was prima facie contemptuous.

Delhi High Court Seeks BCI's Stand On Attendance Requirements For 5-Year LLB Courses In Suo Moto Case Over Student's Suicide

Title: COURTS ON ITS OWN MOTION IN RE: SUICIDE COMMITTED BY SUSHANT ROHILLA, LAW STUDENT OF I.P. UNIVERSITY

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1139

The Delhi High Court has recently sought stand of the Legal Education Committee of the Bar Council of India (BCI) regarding the attendance requirements for five year LL.B. degree courses.

A division bench comprising of Justice Prathiba M Singh and Justice Amit Sharma asked the BCI's Legal Education Committee to hold a virtual meeting for finalising its position and directed that an affidavit be filed within two weeks.

Orders Passed U/S 12 Of Guardians And Wards Act Appealable U/S 19 Of Family Courts Act: Delhi High Court

Title: X v. Y

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1140

A full bench of Delhi High Court has ruled that the orders passed under Section 12 of the Guardians and Wards Act would be appealable under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act.

The full bench comprising of Justice Rekha Palli, Justice Jasmeet Singh and Justice Amit Bansal was answering a reference in a minor custody case. The question before the full bench was whether an order passed under Section 12 of the GW Act would be appealable under Section 19 of the FC Act?

Delhi High Court Summons Counselling Centre In-Charge For Failing To Translate Contents Of Settlement In Vernacular Language

Title: SANTOSH KUMAR AND ORS. v. STATE THROUGH SHO PS NEW ASHOK NAGAR AND ANR

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1141

The Delhi High Court recently summoned the in-charge of counselling centre, Karkardooma Courts, for failing to translate contents of a settlement agreement to the complainant woman in the vernacular language understood by her.

Justice Chandra Dhari Singh observed that though the official language for court proceedings and documentation is English, the concerned authority is duty bound to translate the contents of such documents to a person not well versed with the language.

'OKEY' Is Informal Usage, Slangs Cannot Be Regarded As “Meaningful English Usage”: Delhi High Court

Case Title: STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION AND ANR versus SHUBHAM PAL ANR ORS

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1142

A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justices C. Hari Shankar and Sudhir Kumar Jain was considering an academic issue concerning Combined Graduate Level Examination Tier-II, 2023 conducted by the SSC for recruitment to various civil posts.

Delhi High Court Allows Review Petition, Recalls Direction To Respondents To Appoint Petitioner Due To Low Merit

Case Title: GIRRAJ PRASAD GURJAR versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1143

A division bench of Delhi High Court comprising Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur has allowed a Review Petition filed by the Respondents seeking review of its order directing the Respondent to recall the appointment of a candidate(writ petitioner).

Review was sought on the ground that the candidate had not made his place in the merit list, however, the Single Judge had directed the Respondents to recall his offer of appointment.

Delhi High Court Dismisses Plea Challenging Recalculation Of Arbitral Fees, Upholds Separate Fee Calculation For Claims & Counterclaims

Case Title: ICRI CORPORATES PRIVATE LIMITED v. SHOOGLO NETWORK PRIVATE LIMITED (PREVIOUSLY OMG NETWORK PRIVATE LIMITED)

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1144

The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Sachin Datta has held that the arbitral tribunal had correctly applied the IVth Schedule of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, in recalculating the fees separately for the claims and counterclaims.

Additionally, the court held that invoking Section 39(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was premature since no award had been made.

'Reasons' To Remit Matter For Fresh Inquiry Need To Be 'Meaningful And Self Speaking', Can't Be Left To Imagination, Delhi High Court

Case Title: UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. Versus ANAND MOHAN SHARAN & ANR

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1145

A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justices Hari Shankar and Sudhir Kumar Jain upheld a judgement of the Central Administrative Tribunal stating that the 'reasons' for remitting the matter as is required by Rule 9(1) of the AIS (D & A) Rules need to be meaningful and cannot be left for imagination.

SCN Was 'Gloriously Silent' On Provisions Of GST Act Which Were Allegedly Infringed: Delhi High Court Quashes Order

Case Title: Amir Malik vs. Commissioner of GST

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1146

Finding that the SCN as well as the final order fails to provide any clue with respect to the provision of the statute which was alleged to have been violated or infringed, the Delhi High Court quashes the SCN & the order of cancellation of GST registration.

Approval By DoE Mandatory For Order Of Dismissal Against Teachers In Private Schools, Ex Post Facto Approval Cannot Sustain In Law, Delhi High Court

Case Title: ASHA RANI GUPTA versus RAVINDERA MEMORIAL PUBLIC SCHOOL & ANR

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1147

A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justices Hari Shankar and Justices Sudhir Kumar Jain has recently set aside a teacher's Order of Dismissal from service observing that the ex post facto approval of the Directorate of education in dismissing a teacher from service granted cannot sustain in law as mandated under Section 8(2) of the DSE Act and Rule 120(2) of the DSE Rules.

Right To Seek Reference To Arbitration U/S 8 Can Be Waived At Instance Of Defendant: Delhi High Court

Case Title: M/S Sultan Chand and Sons Pvt. Ltd. v. Kartik Sharma

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1148

The Delhi High Court bench of Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela has held that a Defendant (in a civil suit) has the right to withdraw an application filed under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and submit to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. The court held that when the Defendant (herein, the Respondent) withdrew the application seeking a reference to arbitration, the Plaintiff (herein, the Appellant) had no legal right to oppose the withdrawal of the application and/or insist that the matter be referred to arbitration.

Interference Under Article 227 Is Permissible Only If Order Of Arbitrator Is Completely Perverse And Illegal: Delhi High Court

Case Title: DR. RAJAN JAISWAL v. M/S SRL LIMITED

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1149

The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Manoj Jain held that judicial interference under Article 227 of the Indian Constitution in the arbitral matters should be limited and confined to exceptional cases.

Vacancies Of Lawyers' Chambers Must Be Notified To All Members To Avoid Arbitrariness: Delhi High Court

Title: ANITA GUPTA SHARMA v. CHAMBER ALLOTMENT COMMITTEE & OTHERS

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1150

The Delhi High Court has recently observed that the vacancies regarding lawyers' chambers must be notified to the lawyers to ensure that every eligible advocate gets an equal opportunity to express interest.

When SLP Dismissal Order Is Non-Speaking, Review U/S 17 Of Arbitration Act Permissible: Delhi High Court

Case Title: National Highways Authority of India v. Guruvayoor Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1151

The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh held that if an order of dismissal of the SLP is a non-speaking order and no reasoning has been given by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court for the same, then review of the order challenged is permissible.

Court Can Dispense Requirement To Furnish Surety Bond Executed By Third Person For Bail Or Suspension Of Sentence: Delhi High Court

Title: OBI OGOCHUKWA STEPHEN v. STATE and other connected matter

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1152

The Delhi High Court has recently held that it is permissible for a Court to completely dispense with the requirement that an undertrial prisoner or convict must furnish a surety bond executed by a third person to avail the benefit of bail or suspension of sentence.

Details Contained In Delhi Police Special Branch Manual Confidential, Exempted From Disclosure Under RTI Act: High Court

Title: HARKISHANDAS NIJHAWAN v. CPIO, SPECIAL BRANCH OF DELHI POLICE & ANR.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1153

The Delhi High Court has ruled that the details contained in Delhi Police's Special Branch Manual is confidential in nature and is exempted from disclosure under the Right to Information Act, 2005.

Justice Sanjeev Narula said that by virtue of the confidential nature, the details cannot be brought into the public domain.

Standard Is Higher For Post-Award Section 9 Relief, Order To Deposit Amount Not Passed In Routine Manner: Delhi HC

Case Title: NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA V. M/S IRB AHMEDABAD VADODARA SUPER EXPRESS TOLLWAYS PVT. LTD

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1154

The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Hari Shankar held that the standard required to be met by a post-award Section 9 relief is higher than that required by pre-award Section 9 reliefs. In this case, interim relief under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act was sought to secure the awarded amount.

Climate Activist Sonam Wangchuk's Fast Withdrawn After Discussions: Delhi Police To High Court

Title: Apex Body Leh v. Government of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1155

The Delhi Police has informed the Delhi High Court that climate activist Sonam Wangchuk and his associates from Ladakh have withdrawn their protest and fast after discussions.

The submission was made by Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta before a division bench comprising of Justice Prathiba M Singh and Justice Amit Sharma.

High Court Denies Bail To Shahrukh Pathan In Delhi Riots Case

Title: Shahrukh Pathan v. State

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1156

The Delhi High Court has denied bail to Shahrukh Pathan, the man who pointed a gun at a policeman during the 2020 North-East Delhi riots.

Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma dismissed the regular bail plea moved by Pathan in FIR 51 of 2020 registered at Jafrabad Police Station.

Stamp Act Not Enacted To Arm Litigant With “Weapon Of Technicality”: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Punita Bhardwaj vs. Rashmi Juneja

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1157

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Manoj Jain has observed that “the Stamp Act is a fiscal measure enacted to secure revenue for the State on certain classes of instruments and it has not been enacted to arm a litigant with a weapon of technicality to counter and oppose the case of its adversary.”

Pre-Arbitral Resolution Clauses Are Directory, Not Mandatory, Especially in Cases Requiring Urgent Adjudication: Delhi High Court

Case Title: JHAJHARIA NIRMAN LTD. v. SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAYS

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1158

The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Sachin Datta has held that any pre-condition in an arbitration agreement obliging one of the contracting parties to either exhaust the pre-arbitral amicable resolution avenues or to take recourse to Conciliation are directory and not mandatory.

Assessee Entitled To Charge Depreciation On Purchase Of Goodwill: Delhi High Court

Case title: The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-3 v. Esys Information Technologies Ltd

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1159

The Delhi High Court has made it clear that goodwill is not 'income' but rather 'expenditure' for acquisition of assets and therefore, an assessee is entitled to charge depreciation on the amount spent towards it.

Office Memorandum Is a Statutory Instruction, Cannot Supersede Statutory Rules: Delhi High Court Reiterates

Case Title: UNION OF INDIA & ORS versus JAGDISH SINGH & ORS

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1160

A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justices C. Hari Shankar and Sudhir Kumar Jain upheld the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal reaffirming that Office Memorandum could not supersede the Statutory Rules. It observed that the Office Memorandum being a statutory instruction can supplement the Statutory Rules, however, it cannot override or supersede the said Rules.

Court Under S.9 Of Arbitration Act Can Grant Interim Measure To Protect Property From Being 'Wasted' While Hearing Appeal U/S 37: Delhi High Court

Case Title: - BCC DEVELOPERS & PROMOTERS PVT. LTD v. BHUPENDER SINGH & ANR

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1161

The Delhi High Court Bench of Chief Justice Manmohan and Mr. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela held that the court in the exercise of powers under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act, is not obligated to consider the merits or otherwise of the facts as stated by the litigants.

S.245 IT Act | TDS Deducted By Employer Can't Be Adjusted Against Assessee's Future Refund: Delhi High Court

Case title: Satwant Singh Sanghera v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1162

The Delhi High Court recently granted relief to Satwant Singh Sanghera, a pilot formerly employed with the now collapsed Kingfisher Airlines, against tax demand of over Rs 11 lakh.

Non-Signatories Bound By Arbitration Agreement If Their Actions Align With Those Of Signatories: Delhi High Court

Case Title: KKH FINVEST PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR v. JONAS HAGGARD & ORS.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1163

The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh held that if a non-signatory party actively participates in the performance of a contract, and its actions align with those of the other members of the group, it gives the impression that the non-signatory is a “veritable” party to the contract which contains the arbitration agreement. Based on this impression, the other party may reasonably assume that the non-signatory is indeed a veritable party to the contract and bind it to the arbitration agreement.

Arbitration Proceedings Before Improperly Constituted Arbitral Tribunal Are Non-Est: Delhi High Court

Case Title: M/S. M.V. OMNI PROJECTS (INDIA) LTD. v. UNION OF INDIA

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1164

The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Sachin Datta has held where the appointment procedure is invalid, any proceedings before an improperly constituted arbitral tribunal are non-est. Also, this would not prevent the Court from exercising jurisdiction under Section 11 of the act.

Jurisdiction Under Articles 226/227 Of Constitution Cannot Be Invoked When Order Passed By Arbitral Tribunal Is Procedural: Delhi High Court

Case Title: LALIT MOHAN v. M/S. NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL CO. FEDERATION OF INDIA LTD. (NAFED)

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1165

The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula held that the question of maintainability of a writ petition in relation to arbitration proceedings is well settled. The jurisdiction of the Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950, cannot be invoked where the orders passed by the Arbitral Tribunals are procedural in nature.

'Right To Represent' Not Unlimited: Delhi HC In Former Jharkhand CM Madhu Koda's Plea To Stay Conviction In Coal Block Case For Contesting Elections

Case title: Madhu Koda vs. State Thru CBI

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1166

While hearing former Jharkhand Chief Minister Madhu Kodha's plea to stay his conviction in an alleged coal scam case to enable him to contest the upcoming assembly elections, the Delhi High Court said that Koda was not a sitting MLA at the time of his conviction and so there may not be any irreversible consequences if the conviction is not stayed.

No Compensation Can Be Awarded As Consequence Of Breach In Absence Of Any Legal Injury: Delhi HC Dismisses Plea U/S 34 Of Arbitration Act

Case Title: UNION OF INDIA v. MS KRISHNA CONSTRUCTIONS COMPANY

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1167

The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Mr. Prateek Jalan held that no compensation can be awarded as a consequence of breach of a contract, in the absence of any resulting legal injury. Although the extent of loss or damage is not required to be proven, the fact that loss or damage has been suffered must be established, even to claim liquidated damages or penalty.

Delhi High Court Rules In Favour Of 'Dream 11' In Trademark Infringement Suit Against Replica Website

Title: SPORTA TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD., AND ANR. v. HONG YI F35 AND OTHERS

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1168

The Delhi High Court has recently ruled in favour of fantasy sports platform “Dream 11” in a trademark and copyright infringement suit against a “replica website” misleading the public by using the former's registered trademark, logo and tagline.

Prima Facie Doesn't Target Caste/ Tribal Identity: Delhi HC Grants Transit Bail To Man Over 'Derogatory' Instagram Video On People Of Nagaland

Title: AKASH TANWAR v. STATE OF DELHI & ORS and other connected matter

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1169

The Delhi High Court has granted transit bail to a man booked under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, for posting an allegedly derogatory and insulting Instagram video on people of Nagaland with the intent to incite communal hatred, enmity and disharmony.

HC Can Invoke Article 227 To Interfere With Commercial Court's Order If It Suffers From Erroneous Interpretation Of Law: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Ms CP Rama Rao Sole Proprietor v. National Highways Authority Of India

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1170

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Ravinder Dudeja, while hearing a writ petition filed under Article 227, had observed that the interpretation of Section 42 of the A&C Act by the District Judge while returning the Section 34 petition to be filed before the High Court was completely erroneous.

Delhi High Court Refuses To Entertain Husband's Plea To Determine If Wife Is Transgender

Title: SK v. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE DELHI POLICE HQ, ITO, DELHI & ORS.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1171

The Delhi High Court has refused to entertain a petition filed by a husband for medical examination of his wife to determine her gender at any Central Government hospital in the national capital.

Justice Sanjeev Narula remarked that it was a “pure matrimonial dispute" and that a writ petition cannot lie against a private individual.

Delhi High Court Upholds Arbitral Award In Dispute Over Interpretation Of “Revenue” In Agreement Between AAI, DIAL/MIAL

Case Title: Airports Authority of India vs. Delhi International Airport Ltd. & Anr.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1172

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Yashwant Varma, while adjudicating the petitions filed by the Airports Authority of India (AAI) under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, has held that courts while evaluating a challenge under Section 34 would not be justified in faulting an award merely because an alternative view was possible or where they find that, in their opinion and when independently evaluated, a more just conclusion could have been possibly reached. The court dismissed the petitions and concurred with the majority opinion of the arbitral tribunal.

Scope Of Review U/S 37(2)(b) Of Arbitration Act Is Very Limited, Courts Cannot Change Tribunal's Conclusion Based On Detailed Inquiry: Delhi HC

Case Title: Shamlaji Expressway Private Limited v. National Highways Authority Of India

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1173

The High Court of Delhi of Justice Sachin Datta has held that the scope of review of an interlocutory order is very narrow when the tribunal examines the factual scenario in detail before formulating an opinion in Section 17. The court cannot change the conclusion reached by the tribunal when the same is based on an intricate factual examination of the matter.

Limitation Is Mixed Question Of Fact And Law Required To Be Adjudicated U/S 16 Of Arbitration Act: Delhi High Court

Case Title: HOME AND SOUL PRIVATE LIMITED V. T.V. TODAY NETWORK LIMITED

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1174

The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula held that the issue of limitation, raised as a jurisdictional challenge under Section 16 of Arbitration Act, is rarely a pure question of law. More often, it is a mixed question of law and fact. Whether a claim is barred by the law of limitation depends upon the facts that determine the cause of action and the point from which the limitation period is to be computed.

Firecracker Ban: Delhi High Court Directs Licensed Dealers To "Strictly Refrain" From Making Sales Until January 01

Title: DELHI FIRE WORKS SHOPKEEPERS ASSOCIATION v. DELHI POLLUTION CONTROL COMMITTEE & ORS.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1175

The Delhi High Court has recently directed the licensed firework dealers to refrain from selling any firecrackers in the national capital until January 01, 2025.

Officers Facing Temporary Illness Entitled To Promotion After Regaining SHAPE I Medical Category, Delhi High Court Grants Promotion To Army Personnel

Case Title: M SAMUNDRA SINGH versus UOI

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1176

A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur granted promotion to an Army Personnel to the Post of Assistant Commandant which was denied to the Petitioner on Medical Grounds. The Bench held that the Respondents had not provided sufficient reasons as to why the Petitioner was not detailed in a Course that was mandatory to determine the medical fitness of the Officers.

Delhi High Court Orally Asks Govt To Ensure Auto Rickshaws Charge Fare By Meter, Conduct Random Checks

Case title: ANAND MISHRA v/s THE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1177

While hearing a public interest litigation on enforcing the rule on installation of fare meters in autorickshaws in the city, the Delhi High Court orally asked the Government to ensure that people follow the rule and pay the auto fare as per metre, asking the government to carry out random checks at the ground level.

Tribunal Is Master Of Evidence, Findings Cannot Be Scrutinised U/S 37 Of Arbitration Act As If Court Sitting In Appeal: Delhi HC

Case Title: PEC LIMITED v. ADM ASIA PACIFIC TRADING PTE. LTD.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1178

The Delhi High Court Bench of Justices Tara Vitasta Ganju And Vibhu Bakhru held that the Arbitral Tribunal is the master of evidence and a finding of fact arrived at by an arbitrator is on an appreciation of the evidence on record, and is not to be scrutinized under section 37 of Arbitration Act as if the Court was sitting in appeal.

Reduction Of Awarded Interest Under Section 34 Of Arbitration Act Is Impermissible: Delhi High Court

Case Title: M/S STAR SHARES & STOCK BROKERS LTD. V. PRAVEEN GUPTA & ANR.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1179

The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh held that the arbitral tribunal has the discretion to grant pre-award interest and/or post-award interest, on either whole or part of the principal amount. In proceedings under section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, it is impermissible to reduce interest awarded since the same amounts to modification of the Award.

Disabilities Can Be Attributed To Service In Army Due To Stressful Work Conditions, Delhi High Court Grants Disability Pension

Case Title: UOI vs. COL (TS) SHYAMA NAND JHA (RETD.)

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1180

A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur attributed the disabilities of the Respondent to his Service considering that an Army Personnel undergoes rigorous work stress and strain. It upheld the order of the Armed Forced Tribunal stating that the Army personnel worked in a stressful and hostile environment and thus, presumably, his disabilities could ordinarily be attributed to such conditions of service.

Impermissible To Use Section 45 Of PMLA As Tool For Incarceration When Delay In Trial Not Attributable To Accused: Delhi High Court

Title: PANKAJ KUMAR TIWARI v. ED and other connected matter

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1181

The Delhi High Court has held that keeping an accused in custody by using Section 45 of PMLA as a tool for incarceration is not permissible where the delay in trial is not attributable to the accused.

Not Every Legal Mistake Made by Arbitral Tribunal Is Patent Illegality, Scope Limited To Substantive Laws: Delhi High Court

Case Title: NARESH KUMAR BAJAJ v. BUNGE INDIA PVT. LTD.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1182

The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna has held that patent illegality applies only to violations of substantive law of India, the Arbitration Act, or the rules applicable to the substance of the dispute. It does not apply to every legal mistake made by the arbitral tribunal.

'Dismaying' That Despite Approval From Acting Chief Justice To Upgrade Pay-Scale Of Stenographers, Govt Did Not Release Arrears: Delhi High Court

Case title: Civil And Sessions Court Stenographers Association (Regd) & Anr vs. Shri Vijay Kumar Dev

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1183

The Delhi High Court recently expressed its dismay against the Delhi government for not upgrading the pay scales of certain stenographers working in the Delhi District Courts, despite the Acting Chief Justice approving an administrative note concerning the revised pay scales.

Temporary Suspension Of Business Activity On Account Of Ill Health Does Not Warrant Cancellation Of Taxpayer's GST Registration: Delhi HC

Case Title: Ram Niwas versus Commissioner of Central Goods and Services Tax & Anr

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1184

Finding that proper officer passed the order cancelling taxpayer's GST registration with retrospective effect, the Delhi High Court clarified that such order does not indicate any reason for cancelling the GST registration much less from retrospective effect.

Delhi High Court Refuses To Let Leader Of Transnational Govt Of Tamil Eelam Intervene In UAPA Proceedings On LTTE Ban

Case title: Visuvanathan Rudrakumaran vs. The Union Of India & Anr.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1185

The Delhi High Court has dismissed the petition of Visuvanathan Rudrakumaran, who claimed to be the Prime Minister of the Transnational Government of Tamil Eelam (TGTE), for impleadment in UAPA Tribunal proceedings concerning the declaration of Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) as unlawful association.

Delhi High Court Relaxes 2020 Riots Case Accused's Bail Condition, Permits Him To Travel Outside The City To Attend Sister's Wedding

Case title: Shadab Ahmad v State of NCT of Delhi

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1186

Relaxing a condition imposed in a 2021 order while granting bail to a man booked in connection with the murder of Head Constable Ratan Lal during the 2020 North-East riots, the Delhi High Court has permitted the man to attend his sister's wedding in Bijnor, Uttar Pradesh.

No Surprise Claims Can Be Flung Or Sprung Upon Corporate Debtor Once Resolution Plan Is Approved: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Union of India vs. OCL Iron and Steel Limited

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1187

The Delhi High Court bench comprising Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela has reiterated that once a Resolution Plan is approved by NCLT, all prior claims against the Corporate Debtor are extinguished under the "clean slate" theory. 

Two Adjudication Orders Against One Show Cause Notice For The Same Period Is Not Permissible: Delhi High Court

Case Title: M/s Jain Cement Udyog (Through Its Proprietor Sh. Sanjay Jain) v. Sales Tax Officer Class-II

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1188

The Delhi High Court stated that two adjudication orders against one show cause notice for the same period is not permissible.

The Division Bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Ravinder Dudeja was dealing with a case where a show-cause notice had been issued to the assessee under Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017. This notice was duly adjudicated by the department, resulting in an order.

"Matter Involves International Issues, Policy Decision To Be Taken By Centre": Delhi HC On PIL To Grant Admission To Rohingya Refugee Children

Case title: SOCIAL JURIST, A CIVIL RIGHTS GROUP V/s MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ANR.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1189

The Delhi High Court has refused to entertain a public interest litigation (PIL) petition seeking directions to the Delhi government and the Municipal Corporation of Delhi to grant admission to Rohingya refugee children in local schools.

Delhi High Court Grant Bail To 2 Co-Accused In Money Laundering Case Involving Satyendra Jain, Says Parity Applicable In PMLA Cases

Case title: Vaibhav Jain vs. Directorate Of Enforcement & Connected Matter

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1190

The Delhi High Court has granted bail to Vaibhav Jain and Ankush Jain in the money laundering case involving AAP leader Satyendra Jain.

Enforcement Court U/S 48 Of Arbitration Act Can Refuse To Enforce Foreign Award But Cannot Set It Aside: Delhi High Court

Case Title: INTERNATIONAL AIR TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION V.SPRING TRAVELS PVT LTD

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1191

The Delhi High Court Bench of Mr. Justice Jasmeet Singh affirmed that the power to set aside a foreign award lies only with the courts at the seat of the arbitration, which exercise primary/supervisory jurisdiction over the matter. Even if grounds under Section 48 of the Arbitration Act can be made out, the Court being the enforcement court and having only secondary jurisdiction over the foreign award cannot set aside the award but may only “refuse” its enforcement.

Agreement Between Parties Must Be Given Primacy When Deciding Petition U/S 9 Of Arbitration Act: Delhi High Court

Case Title: M/S INNOVATIVE FACILITY SOLUTIONS PVT LTD v. M/S AFFORDABLE INFRASTRUCTURE

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1192

The Delhi High Court Bench of Mr. Justice Jasmeet Singh held that the role of the court under section 9 of the Arbitration Act is to preserve the subject matter of the Arbitration till the arbitral tribunal decides the claims on merits. Whether termination of the agreement was valid or not is not be decided by the court at section 9 stage. Primacy to agreement between the parties has to be given while deciding petition under 9 of Arbitration Act.

Tags:    

Similar News