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...
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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'.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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”].
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.