Citations 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 785 to 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 916NOMINAL INDEXCASA2 STAYS PVT LTD v. BBH COMMUNICATIONS INDIA PVT LTD 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 785MOHD. IRSHAD & ANR. v. NADEEM 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 786RAVI BHUSHAN UPADHYAY v. THE STATE 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 787THE SURGICAL MANUFACTURERS & TRADERS ASSOCIATION THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE v. UNION OF INDIA and other connected...
Citations 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 785 to 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 916
NOMINAL INDEX
CASA2 STAYS PVT LTD v. BBH COMMUNICATIONS INDIA PVT LTD 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 785
MOHD. IRSHAD & ANR. v. NADEEM 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 786
RAVI BHUSHAN UPADHYAY v. THE STATE 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 787
THE SURGICAL MANUFACTURERS & TRADERS ASSOCIATION THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE v. UNION OF INDIA and other connected matter 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 788
RAJESH KUMARI v. DHIRAJ & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 789
Mamta v. Pradeep Kumar 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 790
PREETI v. VIKAS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 791
VAIBHAV KUMAR v. STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 792
AARIF HUSSAIN v. SHRI AJAY KUMAR BHALLA AND ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 793
THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI v. BABITA & ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 794
GLOBAL MUSIC JUNCTION PVT. LTD. v. SHATRUGHAN KUMAR AKA KHESARI LAL YADAV & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 795
Jindal Stainless Ltd Versus DCIT 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 796
RAHUL MOHOD v. THE GOVT. OF NCT DELHI & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 797
PW v. RW 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 798
M/S Frequent Logistics Services PVT. LTD. v. Commissioner Goods and Service Tax Department And ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 799
AMAN GUPTA v. STATE 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 800
National Restaurant Association v. Union Of India & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 801
DEFSYS SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 802
Promoshirt SM SA v. Armassuisse and Anr and other connected matter 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 803
WASIM AHMAD & ORS. v. GOVERMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 804
DR. S. JAITLEY & ANR. v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 805
THE TRUSTEES OF PRINCETON UNIVERSITY v. THE VAGDEVI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 806
Gopal Corporates LLP Versus Commissioner Delhi-East 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 807
PCIT Versus Surya Agrotech Infrastructure Limited 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 808
NIPUN SINGHAL v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 809
SAURAV CHAUDHARY v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 810
RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED & ANR. v. AJIO ONLINE SHOPPING PVT LTD AND ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 811
Captain Arvind Kathpalia v. GNCTD & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 812
Aphv India Investco. Private Limited Versus ACIT 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 813
M/s BCC-MONALISHA (JV) v. Container Corporation of India, ARB.P. 933/2022 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 814
DR. REDDY’S LABORATORIES LIMITED vs FAST CURE PHARMA AND ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 815
M/s BCC-MONALISHA (JV) v. Container Corporation of India, ARB.P. 933/2022 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 816
SANGHI BROS (INDORE) PVT. LTD. vs KAMLENDRA SINGH 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 817
TEK CHAND v. STATE OF U P & ORS. and other connected matters 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 818
Amazon Web Services India Pvt Ltd & Anr. Versus ITO 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 819
X v. Y 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 820
FIROZ AND ANR. v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 821
Himanshu Kumar v. UPSC & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 822
ANITA SANTIAGO v. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 823
Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax -1, Chandigarh Versus M/S Kuantum Papers Ltd. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 824
PALLAVIMOHANALIASPALLAVIMENON v. RAGHU MENON 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 825
SILICA UDYOG INDIA PVT LTD v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. and other connected matters 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 826
MALINI CHAUDHRI v. RANJIT CHAUDHRI & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 827
Rajat Kapoor v. Union of India & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 828
BHAVREEN KANDHARI v. SHRI C. D. SINGH AND ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 829
LIVING MEDIA INDIA LIMITED & ANR. v. AABTAK CHANNEL.COM (JOHN DOES) & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 830
X v. Y 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 831
SANTOSH BHUTANI & ANR v. SAVITRI DEVI THROUGH LRs 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 832
Sarika Patel v. State 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 833
GOPAL RAI v. UNION OF INDIA 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 834
SIDHARTHA EXTENSION POCKET C RESIDENTS WELFARE ASSOCIATION & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 835
Ashok Kumar Rajdev & Ors. v. Government of NCT of Delhi Through Directorate of Vigilance & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 836
MAJOR GENERAL M.S. AHLUWALIA v. M/S TEHELKA.COM & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 837
Sanjay Kumar Pundeer v. State 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 838
Sandhya Gupta & Anr v. State 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 839
RAJASTHAN EQUESTRIAN ASSOCIATION v. EQUESTRIAN FEDERATION OF INDIA AND ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 840
DIKSHIKA MEENA vs UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION & ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 841
DD Global Capital v. S E Investment Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 842
Prince Singh v. Faculty of Law, University of Delhi & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 843
COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. MR. AMAR SINGH BHALLA 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 844
MUSKAN SINGH & ANR. v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 845
COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. State 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 846
Flipkart India Private Limited Versus Value Added Tax Officer 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 847
MOHD. AMIR JAVED v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 848
Sagar & Ors v. State (N.C.T. Of Delhi) & Ors 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 849
IRSHAD ALI v. STATE 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 850
MD IMRAN AHMAD v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 851
RD v. VD 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 852
PEPSICO INC. & ANR. v. PARLE AGRO PRIVATE LIMITED 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 853
ABC v. XYZ 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 854
D v. AK 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 855
ACHAL RANA v. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 856
Anil Kapoor v. Simply Life India & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 857
HEMANT JAIN & ANR. vs STATE (GNCTD) & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 858
AHIRE AJINKYA SHANKAR v. INDIAN COAST GUARD & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 859
ASHISH BHALLA v. STATE & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 860
Harish Kumar Gautam v. University of Delhi 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 861
RED CHILLIES ENTERTAINMENTS PVT LTD v. ASHOK KUMAR/JOHN DOE & ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 862
GNCTD v. Sashank Yadav 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 863
VIKAS THAKUR v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 864
RAJAN & ORS. v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 865
J v. ND 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 866
DELHI WAQF BOARD v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 867
FAROOQ v. COMMISSIONER OF TRANSPORT GNCT OF DELHI AND ANR and other connected matter 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 868
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. v. SH. ASHOK KUMAR RAJDEV & ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 869
Ruchir Agrawal v. Public Enterprises Selection Board & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 870
S Rajadurai v. State & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 871
JRA INFRATECH v. ENGINEERING PROJECTS (INDIA) LIMITED 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 872
Vivek Khanna v. OYO Apartments Investment LLP 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 873
GOLD CROFT PROPERTIES PVT LTD v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 874
KOMAL GUPTA v. AMRENDRA KUMAR GUPTA 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 875
Rahul Gupta v. State 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 876
ABC v. XYZ 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 877
NADEEM MAJID OOMERBHOY vs SH. GAUTAM TANK AND ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 878
RAM KISHOR ARORA v. DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 879
SUHAIL AHMAD THOKAR vs NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 880
UNION OF INDIA v. MS. KIRAN KANOJIA and other connected matters 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 881
CBI v. SHYAMAL GHOSH & ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 882
RAJAN DEVI v. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 883
ASHOK SINGH BHADAURIA vs CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 884
UJJWAL SHORI (THROUGH HIS NATURAL GUARDIAN) v. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 885
Sumitomo Mitsui Financial Group Inc. Versus CIT 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 886
ROHAN PANDEY v. STATE THROUGH SHO PS PALAM VILLAGE AND ANR 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 887
MISS TANISHKA v. ANR v. GNCTD & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 888
THE BHAKTIVEDANTA BOOK TRUST, INDIA v. HTTPS://BHAGAVATAM.IN/#GSC.TAB=0 & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 889
P v. THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 890
JOSEPH VARGHESE v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 891
NAVEEN SHARMA v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 892
Raja v. State & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 893
Disha A Ravi v. State 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 894
X v. Y 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 895
DEEPAK VERMA v. STATE & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 896
AS v. NN 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 897
KARTIKYA SWAMI & ORS. v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 898
SUBHASHINI RATAN & ORS. vs LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY SECRETARIAT NCT OF DELHI & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 899
OMID HUSSAIN KHIL @ UMED MILAD v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 900
Vinod Kumar vs G.N.C.T. of Delhi and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 901
NHAI v. D.S. Toll Roads Pvt Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 902
DLF Limited v. PNB Housing Finance Limited 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 903
RAHUL MAHAJAN v. MINISTRY OF EDUCATION & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 904
SNV AVIATION PVT LTD & ANR. v. DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF CIVIL AVIATION & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 905
PADMAJA GARIKIPATI v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 906
S. DAYA SINGH LAHORIA AND ORS. v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 907
VBM MEDIZINTECHNIK GMBH vs GEETAN LUTHRA 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 908
THEOS FOOD PVT. LTD. & ORS. v. THEOBROMA FOODS PVT. LTD. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 909
STAR INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR. v. JIOLIVE.TV & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 910
GR Builders v. Metro Speciality Hospitals Pvt Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 911
Sarvesh v. AIIMS & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 912
JAINEMO PRIVATE LIMITED v. RAHUL SHAH AND OTHERS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 913
SP Singh Dhillon v. Delhi Capital Badminton Association & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 914
NHAI v. GMR Ambala Chandigarh Expressway Private Limited 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 915
Jitendr Lala & Ors vs The State Of Delhi & Anr 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 916
Case Title: CASA2 STAYS PVT LTD v. BBH COMMUNICATIONS INDIA PVT LTD
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 785
The Delhi High Court has held that the principles of natural justice are not violated when the opportunity to make oral submissions on an issue was granted but not availed by the party. It held that no party has the absolute right to insist on his convenience in every respect.
The bench of Justices Suresh Kumar Kait and Neena Bansal Krishna held that an Arbitrator has a right to manage the proceedings and to give directions to the parties to be present on a particular date, time and place and this would be sufficient compliance of the principles of natural justice.
Title: MOHD. IRSHAD & ANR. v. NADEEM
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 786
The Delhi High Court has observed that mere second marriage of the father, when he lost his first wife, cannot be held per-se a disqualification from his continuing to be a natural guardian of his child.
A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna also observed that even the disparity in the financial status cannot be a relevant factor for denying the custody of a child to the natural parent.
Case Title: RAVI BHUSHAN UPADHYAY v. THE STATE
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 787
The Delhi High Court has observed that courts cannot be used as “matrimonial facilitators” for pressurizing the accused to get married to the victim or be denied bail in sexual assault cases.
Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma added that courts can also not be used by the accused for obtaining bail by asking the complainant to appear before the court and state that he was ready to get married to her.
Case Title: THE SURGICAL MANUFACTURERS & TRADERS ASSOCIATION THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE v. UNION OF INDIA and other connected matter
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 788
The Delhi High Court has upheld the validity of a 2020 notification issued by the Union Ministry of Health & Family Welfare notifying all medical devices, intended for use on human beings or animals, as drugs within the meaning of Section 3(b)(iv) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.
A division bench comprising Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju observed that the Union Government, in its wisdom, thought it fit to bring all medical devices within the ambit of the expression “drug”, which is clearly a policy matter.
CaseTitle: RAJESH KUMARI v. DHIRAJ & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 789
The Delhi High Court has observed that merely because the relationship between the parents has turned acrimonious, resulting in FIRs and making serious allegations against each other, cannot be a ground to deny an attempt at re-establishing the bond between a mother and her minor child.
Justice Navin Chawla set aside a family court order denying custody of a 10 year old minor child to the mother, observing that the interest of the child would lie in receiving the love and affection from both parents, though they may be warring with each other.
Case Title: Mamta v. Pradeep Kumar
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 790
The Delhi High Court has made some striking observations with respect to the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 not recognizing incompatibility of a married couple as a ground for divorce, leaving such couples to "suffer acrimonious relationship" with no exit.
" Unless the opposite party was shown to be at fault, whether it was for ‘Adultery’, ‘Cruelty’, ‘Desertion’ or other grounds as specified under Section 13 of the Act, 1955, no divorce can be granted. With the passage of time, experience has shown that many a times, the marriages do not work because of incompatibility and temperamental differences, for which neither party can be blamed. However, since only Fault Theory prevails, these parties end up warring with each other for years to come only because they have no way of exiting this relationship " a division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna observed.
Case Title: PREETI v. VIKAS
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 791
The Delhi High Court has observed that while looking at acts of 'mental cruelty', the courts must look at the married life of a couple as a whole and not merely a few isolated incidents.
A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna also observed that mere filing of an FIR by wife is not sufficient to prove the allegations of cruelty and dowry harassment without being proved by cogent evidence.
Case Title: VAIBHAV KUMAR v. STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 792
The Delhi High Court has observed that acid attack cases, “characterized by their sheer brutality and devastating consequences”, are among the most grievous crimes which send shockwaves through communities and thus, the role of a court in granting or denying bail to the accused is of vital significance.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma noted that such attacks often result in life-altering injuries, causing not only physical pain but also emotional scars that may never heal.
Case Title: AARIF HUSSAIN v. SHRI AJAY KUMAR BHALLA AND ORS
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 793
The Delhi High Court has granted seven weeks time to the Union Government for complying with a division bench judgment passed in December last year extending the benefit of House Rent Allowance (HRA) to every personnel in the paramilitary forces, irrespective of the rank, as per their entitlement.
Justice Jasmeet Singh passed the order in a plea seeking contempt action against the authorities for failing to comply with the judgment.
Case Title: THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI v. BABITA & ORS
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 794
The Delhi High Court has observed that gender based assumptions in favour of a female accused, without any substantive basis or valid grounds, goes against the core principles of our justice system.
“ Our legal system is founded on the principle of gender neutrality, unless otherwise provided, where each individual, regardless of their gender, is held accountable for their actions in accordance with the law. Presumptions based on gender have no place within this framework, unless provided by law, as they undermine the pursuit of truth and justice,” Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said.
Case Title: GLOBAL MUSIC JUNCTION PVT. LTD. v. SHATRUGHAN KUMAR AKA KHESARI LAL YADAV & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 795
The Delhi High Court has observed that the Specific Relief (Amendment) Act, 2018, has changed the nature of specific relief from an equitable, discretionary remedy to a statutory remedy and has made specific performance of a contract a general rule rather than an exception.
A division bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Saurabh Banerjee said that the 2018 Amendment Act has brought the Indian Specific Performance Act in line with the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts, as it aspires to achieve “harmonization in international law governing commercial contracts.”
Delhi High Court Limits Adjustment Of Tax Refunds Against Disputed Demands At 20%
Case Title: Jindal Stainless Ltd Versus DCIT
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 796
The Delhi High Court has limited the adjustment of tax refunds against disputed demands to 20%.
The bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Girish Kathpalia has observed that the action of the AO in adjusting the refund due to the petitioner/assessee for AY 2022–23 against the disputed demands for AYs 2011–12, 2012–13, and 2014–15 was not only hasty but was also contrary to law.
Case Title: RAHUL MOHOD v. THE GOVT. OF NCT DELHI & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 797
The Delhi High Court has said that the Delhi Government is addressing the immediate healthcare requirements of animals and is also investing in the training and skill development of veterinary personnel through construction of a veterinary college.
A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula also said that the government is seized of the threat posed by Canine Distemper virus and Parovirus in animals and is actively vaccinating them for the same.
‘Mental Cruelty’ Wide Enough To Include ‘Financial Instability’ Of Spouse: Delhi High Court
Case Title: PW v. RW
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 798
The Delhi High Court has ruled that term “mental cruelty” is wide enough to take within its ambit the “financial instability” of a spouse.
“In the present case, it is easy to decipher the mental trauma as the appellant [wife] was working and the respondent [husband] was not working. There was a huge disparity in the financial status of the appellant and the respondent. The endeavours of the respondent to be able to sustain himself had admittedly failed. Such kind of financial instability is bound to result in mental anxiety on account of husband being not settled in any business or profession which resulted in other vices, can be termed as a constant source of mental cruelty to the appellant. The term “mental cruelty” is wide enough to take within its ambit the “financial instability”” a division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna said.
Case Title: M/S Frequent Logistics Services PVT. LTD. v. Commissioner Goods and Service Tax Department And ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 799
The Delhi High Court has recently set aside show cause notice proposing to cancel GST registration and the consequential order cancelling the same on the ground that reasons for cancelling registration of assesee were not clearly mentioned in the show cause notice.
A bench comprising of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Amit Mahajan held: “At the least, the Show Cause Notice must clearly indicate the reasons for which an adverse order is proposed to be passed in order for the noticee to respond to the same.”
Case Title: AMAN GUPTA v. STATE
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 800
The Delhi High Court has observed that issuing fake invoices and e-way bills for GST evasion is an economic offence involving loss to the public exchequer which needs to be viewed seriously.
Justice Amit Bansal made the observation while denying anticipatory bail to a chartered accountant accused of forgery and GST evasion by creating false invoices issued by non-existent entities.
Case Title: National Restaurant Association v. Union Of India & Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 801
The Delhi High Court has directed the members of Federation of Hotel and Restaurant Associations of India to only use the term “Staff Contribution” for the amount being charged as “service charge” currently.
Justice Prathiba M Singh added that the amount being charged as “staff contribution” shall not be more than 10% of the total bill amount excluding the GST component.
Case Title: DEFSYS SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 802
The Delhi High Court has observed that indefinite suspension of an entity under the Union Ministry of Defence’s 2016 guidelines for penalties in business dealing, without resort to the safeguards prescribed for banning, would not be permissible.
The guidelines were issued on November 21, 2016. They provide for suspension and debarment of suppliers for violation of defense procurement processes.
Justice Prathiba M Singh said that the suspension is a subset or species within debarment or banning and not an independent measure and that suspension cannot be read in isolation but has to be read as a part of the banning process.
Case Title: Promoshirt SM SA v. Armassuisse and Anr and other connected matter
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 803
The Delhi High Court has ruled that Section 100A of the Code of Civil Procedure bars the filing of a second appeal where a Single Judge had heard an appeal from an original or appellate decree or order.
A division bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Dharmesh Sharma said that the restraint on a further appeal shall operate notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent of a High Court or any other law for the time being in force.
Do Ten Pro Bono Cases: Delhi High Court To Lawyer While Quashing FIRs Lodged Against Him By Ex-Wife
Case Title: WASIM AHMAD & ORS. v. GOVERMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 804
The Delhi High Court recently directed a lawyer to do ten pro bono cases while quashing two FIRs registered against him by his former wife, after they amicably settled the disputes and got talaq.
Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma quashed the FIRs registered under Section 498A, 406 and 34 of Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 as well as under Section 354 IPC and 10 of the POCSO Act.
The cases were registered by the wife due to matrimonial disputes between her and the husband. After a settlement was entered between them, they were granted Talaq-E-Mubarat.
Case Title: DR. S. JAITLEY & ANR. v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 805
The Delhi High Court has observed that courts should be flexible in embracing modern technology and allowing virtual appearance in criminal trials, provided they do not compromise the integrity or fairness of the trial.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said that where the criminal trial can proceed effectively with the accused remaining present before the court through an alternative means such as vide-conferencing and representation by legal counsel, courts should be flexible in considering such prayers made by the accused.
Case Title: THE TRUSTEES OF PRINCETON UNIVERSITY v. THE VAGDEVI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 806
The Delhi High Court has observed that merely because several Indians may have studied in the prestigious Princeton University in the United States would not amount to “use” by the American Ivy League college of its “Princeton” mark in India for providing its services in terms of the Trade Marks Act.
“ Reference to Indian students studying at Princeton, howsoever large the number, cannot amount to the plaintiff providing services, in India, under the PRINCETON mark. Opening of centres in the plaintiff-institution in the US, dealing with Indian subjects, Indian studies, or Indian cultural activities, too, does not reflect use, by the plaintiff, of the PRINCETON mark in India prior to 1991,” Justice C Hari Shankar said.
Case Title: Gopal Corporates LLP Versus Commissioner Delhi-East
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 807
The Delhi High Court has upheld the validity of Rule 8 of the Chewing Tobacco and Unmanufactured Tobacco Packing Machines (Capacity Determination and Collection of Duty) Rules 2010 (CTUT), which deals with the alteration in the number of operating packing machines.
The bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Dharmesh Sharma has observed that Rule 8 notes that in case a machine is added to the production capabilities existing in a factory, the number of operating packing machines for the month shall be deemed to be the maximum number of packing machines installed and existing on any day during that month.
Case Title: PCIT Versus Surya Agrotech Infrastructure Limited
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 808
The Delhi High Court has held that undisclosed income taxed in the hands of flagship companies cannot be again subjected to tax in the hands of assessee companies.
The bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Girish Kathpalia has observed that since the undisclosed income, which is the subject matter of the present dispute, had already been taxed in the hands of the flagship company Surya Food & Agro Ltd., it cannot be again subjected to tax in the hands of the respondents or assessee companies in the form of application of the income as their share capital.
Banks Can’t Use Look Out Circulars As Measure To Recover Money From Creditors: Delhi High Court
Case Title: NIPUN SINGHAL v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 809
The Delhi High Court has observed that banks cannot use Look Out Circulars (LOCs) as a measure of recovering money from creditors just because they feel remedy available under law is not sufficient.
Justice Subramonium Prasad said that LOC can be issued only when there are sufficient reasons. He added that if there is a condition precedent for issuance of such LOC, the same must be provided therein.
Case Title: SAURAV CHAUDHARY v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 810
The Delhi High Court has observed that patent and trademark agents do not come within the ambit of the Bar Council of India or the Advocates’ Act, 1961. Justice Prathiba M Singh added that there is no supervisory or regulatory authority over trademark and patent agents which appears to be the 'need of the hour'.
The bench thus sought to know the manner in which the Office of Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trade Marks intends to regulate or supervise the functioning of trademark and patent agents.
Case Title: RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED & ANR. v. AJIO ONLINE SHOPPING PVT LTD AND ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 811
The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi Police’s Cyber Cell to investigate “unscrupulous individuals” involved in “large scale operation” of collecting money under the name of fashion and lifestyle brand AJIO, by way of scratch coupons and prize money.
“….the Court is convinced that this appears to be a large-scale operation carried out by unscrupulous individuals with the intention of collecting money under the name of ‘AJIO’ and ‘AJIO Online Shopping Private Limited’. The letters and the scratch cards, etc., are so convincing that any customer or recipient would be unable to distinguish between the Plaintiffs' (Ajio’s) communications and those of the said entity or person,” Justice Prathiba M Singh said.
Case Title: Captain Arvind Kathpalia v. GNCTD & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 812
The Delhi High Court has said that a person cannot be subjected to double jeopardy by initiating criminal proceeding after he has been exonerated in the disciplinary proceeding on same allegations.
The case pertains to a pilot of Air India who was facing criminal proceeding for forgery even after the disciplinary case against him was closed by the department.
Overlooking Assesssee’s Reply Demonstrates Non-Application Of Mind By The AO: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Aphv India Investco. Private Limited Versus ACIT
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 813
The Delhi High Court has quashed the draft assessment orders, final assessment orders, and consequential demand on the grounds that the assessing officer inadvertently overlooked the email reply of the assessee, in which the assessee disclosed vital facts pertaining to its case.
The bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Girish Kathpalia has observed that the denial of sufficient time to respond was not just an abrogation of jus naturale but also infringed clause B(1) of the Standard Operating Procedure dated November 19, 2020, of the CBDT, according to which normally a response time of 15 days has to be given to the assessee in order to respond to the notice under Section 142 of the Income Tax Act.
Case Title: M/s BCC-MONALISHA (JV) v. Container Corporation of India, ARB.P. 933/2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 814
The Delhi High Court has held that claims of a party cannot be referred to arbitration when the requirement to mandatorily notify such claims with the General Manger (GM) was not followed.
Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri held that the Court can conduct a preliminary enquiry to find out if the dispute is arbitrable in terms of the agreement and refuse arbitration when the claims are ex facie non-arbitrable.
Case Title: DR. REDDY’S LABORATORIES LIMITED vs FAST CURE PHARMA AND ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 815
The Delhi High Court has ruled that High Courts have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the rectification petition seeking removal of trademark from the Register of Trademarks under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, if the ‘dynamic effect’ of the impugned registration is felt within the High Court’s jurisdiction by the person who has challenged the validity of the trade mark registration or has sought its removal.
Accordingly, the court said, the High Court dealing with a suit for infringement of Trademark would have the jurisdiction to entertain the rectification petition after the court comes to the conclusion that the plea of invalidity raised by the party under Section 124(1)(ii) of the Act, is tenable.
Case Title: M/s BCC-MONALISHA (JV) v. Container Corporation of India, ARB.P. 933/2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 816
The Delhi High Court has held that in cases where the contract stipulates arbitration solely in instances where the cumulative value of claims is below 20% of the contract value, the court would abstain from directing the parties towards arbitration if the claims surpass this specified cumulative value threshold.
Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri held that the Court can conduct a preliminary enquiry to find out if the dispute is arbitrable in terms of the agreement and refuse arbitration when the claims are ex facie non-arbitrable.
Case Title: SANGHI BROS (INDORE) PVT. LTD. vs KAMLENDRA SINGH
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 817
The Delhi High Court has refused to grant decree of specific performance against a suit property after noting that the property had been sold to a third party during the pendency of the suit. The court said the said circumstance made it inequitable to grant and enforce the specific performance decree.
Justice Chandra Dhari Singh reiterated that it is a settled law that specific performance is not granted by the Courts due to the various hardships which may be caused to the third party in case the specific performance is granted. The bench said that while exercising the discretion of granting specific performance, the court has to balance the interests of justice and equity for the parties involved and has to look into the probable consequences of granting such specific performance.
Case Title: TEK CHAND v. STATE OF U P & ORS. and other connected matters
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 818
While upholding the acquittal of five accused persons in 2015 in a murder case registered way back in 1998, the Delhi High Court has cautioned the Delhi Police and Uttar Pradesh Police for conducting “terrible investigation.”
A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna said that both the investigating agencies “mechanically investigated” the FIR which was registered in 1998 wherein the accused persons were acquitted in 2015 and thus, faced “ordeal of long trial and suffered loss of time, energy and reputation” which cannot be compensated in terms of money or otherwise.
Case Title: Amazon Web Services India Pvt Ltd & Anr. Versus ITO
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 819
The Delhi High Court has directed that AWS India withhold 8% of payments payable or paid to AWS USA and deposit the same with the income tax department.
The division bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan has observed that the nature of the proceedings is confined to the withholding of tax and that the financial year 2022–23 is already over.
Title: X v. Y
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 820
The Delhi High Court has said that a wife cannot be entitled to maintenance by the husband when she is highly qualified and has been earning even after her marriage, though she does not truthfully disclose her true income.
While upholding a family court order dismissing a wife’s application for maintenance under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, a division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna said:
“We find that in the present case it is not only that the appellant is highly qualified and has an earning capacity, but in fact she has been earning, though has not been inclined to truthfully disclose her true income. Such a person cannot be held entitled to maintenance.”
Case Title: FIROZ AND ANR. v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 821
Applying law is not akin to solving a mathematical theorem, it cannot be done in isolation, the Delhi High Court has observed.
“As the people of the State are affected by these legal decisions, a rigid and mathematical application of the law may lead to disastrous outcomes. For instance, if a person is the sole provider for their family and serves as the head of the household, sending them to jail could result in severe hardship for their dependents. Therefore, such a strict approach would be considered cruel and impractical,” Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar said.
Civil Services Exam 2023: Delhi High Court Admits Plea Seeking Publication Of Prelims Answer Key
Case Title: Himanshu Kumar v. UPSC & Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 822
The Delhi High Court has admitted the plea challenging the decision of Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) to publish the answer key of the preliminary examination of Civil Services Examination 2023 only after declaration of final result.
Justice Chandra Dhari Singh pronounced the judgment on maintainability of the plea which has been moved by 17 civil services aspirants seeking publication of answer key before the entire process is completed. The court had reserved the verdict on August 02.
Stray Dogs Captured For Preparation Of G20 Summit Being Released As Per Law: MCD To Delhi High Court
Case Title: ANITA SANTIAGO v. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 823
The Municipal Corporation of Delhi has told the Delhi High Court that the process of releasing stray dogs that were captured during the preparation for G20 Summit has been initiated in strict adherence with law.
The G20 Summit was held in the national capital on September 9-10.
A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula was hearing a PIL moved by an animal activist highlighting the manner in which the stray dogs were captured in Delhi during special events like Independence Day, Republic Day and most recently, the G20 Summit.
Brand Names Are Specie Of The Trademark: Delhi High Court Allows Depreciation
Case Title: Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax -1, Chandigarh Versus M/S Kuantum Papers Ltd.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 824
The Delhi High Court has allowed the depreciation and held that the expression "trademark" under Section 32(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and in the appended Explanation 3(b) would clearly include brand names.
The bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Girish Kathpalia has observed that the definition of assets, as explained in the explanation, includes commercial rights of similar nature. Brand names certainly invest in the owner's commercial rights and, therefore, will fall within the scope of intangible assets, which are amenable to depreciation under Section 32(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Case Title: PALLAVIMOHANALIASPALLAVIMENON v. RAGHU MENON
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 825
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the period of limitation for filing an appeal against a judgment or order of the family court is 30 days.
A division bench of Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Vikas Mahajan added that the delay in filing of such an appeal can be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. 1963, if sufficient cause is shown.
Case Title: SILICA UDYOG INDIA PVT LTD v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. and other connected matters
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 826
The Delhi High Court has upheld a restriction on LPG gas cylinder manufacturers, having common business ownership including sister companies, to quote only a single bid while applying in the tender floated by Hindustan Petroleum, Bharat Petroleum and Indian Oil Corporation Limited.
A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula dismissed the petitions moved by various vendors who were effectively barred from submitting bids separately through each of their manufacturing units.
Case Title: MALINI CHAUDHRI v. RANJIT CHAUDHRI & ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 827
The Delhi High Court has observed that a divorced daughter is not a “dependent” under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, and that she is not entitled to claim maintenance from the estate of her deceased father.
“An unmarried or widowed daughter is recognized to have a claim in the estate of the deceased, but a “divorced daughter” does not feature in the category of dependents entitled to maintenance,” a division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna observed.
Case Title: Rajat Kapoor v. Union of India & Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 828
The Delhi High Court has clarified that provisions under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 that are relevant for the purpose of electric vehicles are applicable to them.
A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad said that insurance cover and wearing helmet or protective gear is mandatory for e-bikes and that electric vehicles will also be subjected to the requirement of registration and penal provisions in law, as applicable to other vehicles.
No Permission To Be Granted For Felling Of Trees To Construct Houses In Delhi: High Court
Case Title: BHAVREEN KANDHARI v. SHRI C. D. SINGH AND ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 829
The Delhi High Court has said that no permission shall be granted to anyone by the city authorities for felling of trees for construction of houses in the national capital.
Justice Jasmeet Singh said that its earlier interim order, recording the Delhi Government’s stand that no permission will be granted to any individual for felling of trees and that any permission required for important projects will be intimated to court, shall continue till October 06.
Case Title: LIVING MEDIA INDIA LIMITED & ANR. v. AABTAK CHANNEL.COM (JOHN DOES) & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 830
Ruling in favour of Aaj Tak, the Delhi High Court has permanently restrained various YouTube channels and social media handles from using marks that are deceptively similar and identical to the registered trademark of the news channel.
Justice C Hari Shankar passed the permanent injunction order in favour of Living Media India Limited which runs the news channel under the registered trademark “Aaj Tak.”
It was Aaj Tak’s case that the YouTube channels and social media handles were violating its registered mark by using “Aaj Tak” mark and its various derivative forms illegally and unauthorisedly.
Case Title: X v. Y
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 831
The Delhi High Court has observed that a husband living with another woman, after long years of separation from his wife with no possibility of re-union during the pendency of the divorce petition, cannot disentitle him from seeking divorce on proven grounds of cruelty by the wife.
A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna said that the allegations of cruelty made in criminal cases by the wife should be substantiated in divorce proceedings.
Title: SANTOSH BHUTANI & ANR v. SAVITRI DEVI THROUGH LRs
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 832
The Delhi High Court has said that mere disability does not deprive an individual the constitutional right to practise any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade or business.
“Thus, it would be wholly retrograde, and in derogation of the constitutional guarantees under Articles 14, 19 & 21, to deny the right of a person suffering from any disability, to carry on any trade or business,” Justice Sachin Datta observed.
Title: Sarika Patel v. State
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 833
The Delhi High Court has asked the Municipal Corporation of Delhi to urgently take appropriate action on the “serious issue” of stray dog menace.
“…the issue of stray dog menace is a serious issue, which needs to be addressed with urgency by the concerned authority. Let a copy of this order be sent to Commissioner, MCD for taking appropriate action,” Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma said.
Case Title: GOPAL RAI v. UNION OF INDIA
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 834
The Union Government has informed the Delhi High Court that political clearance has been granted for the foreign visit of Delhi’s Environment Minister Gopal Rai for attending Columbia India Energy Dialogue in New York.
The programme is scheduled to be held in New York, United States of America on September 18.
Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta told Justice Subramonium Prasad that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, political clearance was being granted for Rai’s travel from September 15 to 21.
Title: SIDHARTHA EXTENSION POCKET C RESIDENTS WELFARE ASSOCIATION & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 835
The Delhi High Court on Friday rejected the concerns raised by certain residents from whose area a rapid metro rail would pass, observing that overarching public interest must take precedence over individual property rights.
The project in question is the Delhi-Meerut Regional Rapid Transport System, a semi-high-speed rail corridor, which will connect the cities of Delhi, Ghaziabad, and Meerut
Tiitle: Ashok Kumar Rajdev & Ors. v. Government of NCT of Delhi Through Directorate of Vigilance & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 836
The Delhi High Court has ordered that no coercive steps be taken by any authority against six PWD officials who have challenged the show cause notices issued to them by the Delhi Government’s Vigilance department over alleged gross violations of rules in the renovation work undertaken at the official residence of Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal.
Justice Chandra Dhari Singh observed that despite an undertaking given to the court by the city authorities that no coercive steps shall be taken against the officials, yet, steps were taken against them in the “teeth of the judicial order.”
Case Title: MAJOR GENERAL M.S. AHLUWALIA v. M/S TEHELKA.COM & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 837
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a plea moved by news magazine Tehelka and its co-founder Aniruddha Bahal seeking review of an order directing them to pay Rs. 2 crores damages to a former Army officer Major General MS Ahluwalia in a defamation suit filed by the latter in 2002.
“There is no error apparent on the face of record nor has the applicants been able to highlight any error or mistake which can be corrected within the ambit of review,” Justice Neena Bansal Krishna said.
Title: Sanjay Kumar Pundeer v. State
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 838
The Delhi High Court has ruled that an accused has a right to be released on default bail where the prosecution files a preliminary or incomplete chargesheet within the statutory period.
Justice Amit Sharma said the fundamental right to personal life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution and its co-relation with 167(2) of the CrPC has been clearly established by way of judicial precedents over the years.
Title: Sandhya Gupta & Anr v. State
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 839
While quashing an FIR registered by a brother against her sister, who recently completed her graduation in law, the Delhi High Court directed her to provide her assistance to its Legal Services Committee for one month.
Justice Saurabh Banerjee quashed the case filed in 2019 against the sister as well as the mother wherein the brother accused them of falsification of documents in respect of a family dispute.
Title: RAJASTHAN EQUESTRIAN ASSOCIATION v. EQUESTRIAN FEDERATION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 840
The Delhi High Court has appointed its retired judge, Justice Najmi Waziri, as the Chairman for the Extraordinary General Meeting (EGM) of Equestrian Federation of India (EFI) to be held today.
The agenda for the meeting is for amendments in the ECI calendar, participation and funding for the 19th Asian Games being held from September 23, hiring of a PR agency, digitalisation of old records and status of cases pending before the court.
Case Title: DIKSHIKA MEENA vs UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION & ORS
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 841
The Delhi High Court has dismissed the plea of a Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) aspirant to appear in the forthcoming Civil Services (Main) Examination after her candidature was cancelled for uploading incorrect photograph and signature in the application form.
The petitioner, who had cleared the Preliminary Examination, claimed she had inadvertently uploaded her brother's photo and signature in her application form. She challenged the cancellation of her candidature before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT). The interim relief sought by her that she be permitted to appear in the Main Examination was rejected by the Tribunal.
Case Title: DD Global Capital v. S E Investment Ltd
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 842
The Delhi High Court has held that when earlier loan agreement liabilities are transferred through an agreement, the subsequent loan agreements' arbitration clauses become binding on the parties.
The bench of Justices Manmohan and Mini Pushkarna reiterated that Section 12(5) inserted through the 2015 Amendment to the Act would not apply to an arbitration that had commenced before the amendment came into force. It held that an arbitration commences on the date when the notice of arbitration is issued.
Case Title: Prince Singh v. Faculty of Law, University of Delhi & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 843
The Delhi High Court on Monday passed an interim order and permitted the Delhi University to offer admissions in its newly introduced five-year integrated law courses on the basis of CLAT-UG 2023 score, only for the current academic year.
A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula passed the interim order considering the fact that classes have already started for this academic year in all other universities.
Case Title: COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. MR. AMAR SINGH BHALLA
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 844
The Delhi High Court has sentenced a man to six months of simple imprisonment for failing to pay dues to the wife of his deceased driver and repeatedly flouting undertakings given to that effect to the court.
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav found the man guilty of committing contempt of court for wilfully disobeying his undertakings of making payment to the widow who had a minor daughter.
Right To Choose Life Partner Can’t Be Affected By Faith Or Religion: Delhi High Court
Case Title: MUSKAN SINGH & ANR. v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 845
The Delhi High Court has observed that an individual's right to choose a life partner cannot be affected by matters of faith and religion and that the right to marry is an “incident of human liberty.”
Justice Saurabh Banerjee said that it is not for the State or the society or even the parents of the parties involved to, in any way, dictate the choice of life partner or curtail and limit such rights of an individual when it involves “two consenting adults.”
Case Title: COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. State
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 846
The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi Government to conduct training of the newly recruited public prosecutors in coordination with Delhi Judicial Academy.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula observed that given the distinct role played by the Public Prosecutors, it must be ensured that the new appointees are adequately equipped to “shoulder the weighty responsibilities the post carries.”
Delhi High Court Directs VAT Dept. To Refund Rs. 6.62 Crores To Flipkart
Case Title: Flipkart India Private Limited Versus Value Added Tax Officer
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 847
The Delhi High Court has directed the Value Added Tax (VAT) department to refund Rs. 6.62 crore to Flipkart along with interest.
The bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Dharmesh Sharma has observed that the VAT department has acted arbitrarily in making numerous adjustments post-May 31, 2015, thus illegally depriving the petitioner, Flipkart, of the refund as claimed. The various adjustments clearly appear to have been made even though objections before the Objection Hearing Authority (OHA) had been duly lodged online by the petitioner. The department thus clearly appeared to have acted contrary to the clear mandate of Section 38 of the DVAT Act.
Case Title: MOHD. AMIR JAVED v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 848
The Delhi High Court has denied bail to a man, Mohd. Amir Javed, booked under Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967, for allegedly planning terror activities in the country.
A division bench of Justice Siddharth Mridul and Justice Anish Dayal said that there was a reasonable possibility that Javed was one of the links in the network of people who were cognizant of the plan to trigger terrorist activity by using bombs and explosives and causing loss of life.
Title: Sagar & Ors v. State (N.C.T. Of Delhi) & Ors
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 849
While quashing an attempt to commit culpable homicide case after settlement between the parties, the Delhi High Court has directed all 24 individuals involved in the matter to do “basic cleaning work” for three days at four police stations by dividing themselves in four groups.
“The said 24 persons shall be at liberty to decide amongst themselves as to the composition of each group of 6 persons and also the Police Station where each group shall undertake the aforesaid basic cleaning duty,” Justice Saurabh Banerjee said.
Title: IRSHAD ALI v. STATE
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 850
The Delhi High Court has recently denied bail to an accused in the murder case of Delhi Police’s head constable Ratan Lal during the 2020 North-East Delhi riots.
Justice Saurabh Banerjee said that there are chances that once out on bail, accused Irshad Ali may influence or threaten the witnesses and is likely to tamper with the evidence which can jeopardise and derail the proceedings thereby, “setting the clock back once again.”
Title: MD IMRAN AHMAD v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 851
The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi Government to not publish any job advertisement in its “Rozgar Bazaar portal” which is non-compliant with the Minimum Wages Act, 1948.
A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula took note of Delhi Government’s submission that steps are being taken to update the software portal so that not a single advertisement reflecting wages below the prescribed minimum wages would be uploaded.
Title: RD v. VD
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 852
The Delhi High Court has ruled that constant rejection and non-acknowledgment of the husband in a marriage by his wife is a source of “great mental agony” for him.
A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna upheld a family court order granting divorce to a husband on the ground of cruelty by his wife. The couple got married in March 2011 and started living separated just after six months.
Case Title: PEPSICO INC. & ANR. v. PARLE AGRO PRIVATE LIMITED
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 853
The Delhi High Court has restrained Parle from using the tagline “For The Bold” as predominant part of any advertising campaign for its “B Fizz” beverage in a trademark infringement suit filed by multinational chain PepsiCo.
Justice C Hari Shankar passed the interim order in PepsiCo’s suit seeking a permanent injunction against Parle from using the tagline “For The Bold”. The suit is filed by PepsiCo Inc. and PepsiCo India Holdings Private Limited.
Title: ABC v. XYZ
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 854
Observing that a child is the worst victim where there is acrimonious relationship between the parents, the Delhi High Court has said that a minor’s age and the surrounding circumstances of the period of separation from a parent are relevant while considering his or her 'intelligent preference'.
A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna made the observation while referring to Section 17(3) of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, which states that while appointing a guardian, court may consider preference of a minor in case he or she is old enough to form an “intelligent preference”
Title: D v. AK
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 855
The Delhi High Court has ruled that irretrievable breakdown of marriage is not a ground for seeking divorce and that Family Courts must strictly restrict their considerations to the statutory provisions like those under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
While discussing the theory of breakdown of marriage, a division bench of Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Vikas Mahajan said that irretrievable breakdown of marriage is not a ground for grant of divorce under the enactment.
Title: ACHAL RANA v. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 856
The Delhi High Court has recently observed that in today’s digital era, cyber-crimes are proliferating at an alarming rate and that such offences are neither bound by border restrictions due to their global reach, nor do they discriminate among their victims.
Observing that cyber-crimes target the elderly, young, businesses as well as the governments in the digital landscape, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said, “The consequences of cyber-crimes go beyond individual boundaries, impacting numerous unsuspecting victims.”
Title: Anil Kapoor v. Simply Life India & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 857
The Delhi High Court passed an interim order protecting the personality rights of Bollywood actor Anil Kapoor and restrained various entities from misusing his image, name, voice or other elements of his persona for monetary gains without his consent.
Justice Prathiba M Singh also restrained “other unknown persons” from disseminating various videos, links of which will be uploaded in the order, and directed that the same shall be taken down immediately by all internet service providers.
The court passed interim injunction order in Kapoor’s suit seeking protection of his personality rights. The suit seeks to restrain various entities, including John Does, from violating his personality rights by using his name, acronym ‘AK’, nicknames like 'Lakhan', 'Mr. India ', 'Majnu Bhai' and phrase ‘Jhakaas’ and his voice and images, without his permission for commercial gain.
Case Title: HEMANT JAIN & ANR. vs STATE (GNCTD) & ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 858
The Delhi High Court, while quashing an FIR for forgery and cheating based on the settlement between the accused and the complainant, has directed the parties to pool in money and purchase uniform socks for the police personnel stationed at 6 police stations in Delhi.
The court has directed the parties to procure uniform socks worth Rs. 48,000 for the police officials posted at Keshavpuram, Bharat Nagar, Model Town, Ashok Vihar, Roop Nagar and Maurice Nagar police stations.
Title: AHIRE AJINKYA SHANKAR v. INDIAN COAST GUARD & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 859
The Delhi High Court has granted relief to an applicant whose candidature in the Indian Coast Guard was rejected due to the mismatch of surname in the caste certificate issued to him.
The mismatch prevailed in the name of the candidate and his father in the SC Certificate, due to the omission and addition of their surnames, respectively, with the names submitted in the application form.
Case Title: ASHISH BHALLA v. STATE & ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 860
The Delhi High Court has ruled that once an investigation has been initiated by Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) under Section 212 of the Companies Act, 2013, a parallel investigation by a separate agency into the affairs of such a company is not permissible.
Justice Saurabh Banerjee observed so in view of the bar contained under Section 212(2) of the Act which states that where a case has been assigned by the Central Government to the SFIO, no other investigating agency shall proceed with the probe.
Title: Harish Kumar Gautam v. University of Delhi
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 861
The Delhi High Court has upheld the decision of the Delhi University to relax the upper age limit for undergraduate and postgraduate student candidates participating in Delhi University Student’s Union for the current academic year.
A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula said that a one-time age relaxation has been granted for candidates as the elections were being held after a hiatus of three years due to COVID-19 pandemic.
Title: RED CHILLIES ENTERTAINMENTS PVT LTD v. ASHOK KUMAR/JOHN DOE & ORS
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 862
The Delhi High Court has directed Meta and Telegram to suspend or deactivate the groups and channels illegally circulated content of latest film Jawan starring Bollywood actor Shahrukh Khan.
Justice C Hari Shankar also directed the two platforms to provide the basic subscriber information and other details relating to the administrators of the groups or channels.
Title: GNCTD v. Sashank Yadav
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 863
The Delhi High Court has upheld a single judge order staying two circulars issued by the Delhi Government mandating furnishing of Aadhaar card of a child in the online process for admission in a private school in the national capital under the EWS or DG category.
A division bench comprising of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula said that the issue of obtaining sensitive personal details of a child, as observed by the Supreme Court in K.S. Puttaswamy case, would have the potential of infringing their right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Case Title: VIKAS THAKUR v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 864
The Delhi High Court has recently enunciated various principles to be followed by Magistrates while taking cognizance of offences, observing that the process cannot be a routine exercise.
“If there is such an order taking cognizance then the same would be perfunctory and not reflective of the Magistrate having applied his/her mind. The Magistrate cannot be mechanical in his approach. More so, whence at the end of the day, the Magistrate is setting into motion the judicial machinery against the alleged accused person as it inevitably involves their personal liberty and freedom,” Justice Saurabh Banerjee said.
Case Title: RAJAN & ORS. v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 865
While quashing an FIR for attempt to commit culpable homicide and criminal intimidation based on settlement, the Delhi High Court has directed the parties to give 100 first aid kits to Delhi Police personnel deputed in five police stations.
Justice Saurabh Banerjee directed the three accused and the complainant to give the first aid kits in Ashok Vihar, Keshav Puram, Bharat Nagar, Adarsh Nagar and Model Town police stations within two weeks.
Case Title: J v. ND
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 866
The Delhi High Court has observed that a wife’s misrepresentation about having 'sufficient means' to set up business cannot be said to be of the nature as would amount to 'fraud or concealment' of material fact entitling the husband to seek annulment of marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna made the observations while dismissing a husband’s appeal challenging a family court order dismissing his petition for annulment of marriage on the ground of fraud by the wife under Section 12(1)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Case Title: DELHI WAQF BOARD v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 867
The Delhi Development Authority has assured the Delhi High Court that no mosque, graveyard or legitimate properties owned by the Delhi Waqf Board will be demolished in Mehrauli Archaeological Park in the national capital.
A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula took the statement on record and bound the DDA to the same.
Case Title: FAROOQ v. COMMISSIONER OF TRANSPORT GNCT OF DELHI AND ANR and other connected matter
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 868
The Delhi Government has told the Delhi High Court that it will continue to take necessary steps to check and minimize plying of unauthorized stage carriages, including e-rickshaws, on the routes allotted to Gramin Sewa operators in the national capital.
Taking note of the assurance, Justice Prateek Jalan disposed of two petitions moved by drivers and operators of Rural Transport Vehicles plying on specific routes under the Gramin Sewa scheme.
Case Title: GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. v. SH. ASHOK KUMAR RAJDEV & ORS
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 869
The Delhi High Court has directed the six PWD officials to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal for challenging the show cause notices issued to them by Delhi Government’s Vigilance department over alleged gross violations of rules in renovation work undertaken at official residence of Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal.
A division bench comprising of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula said that the petitions moved by the PWD officials before a single judge challenging the show cause notices was not maintainable in view of the Supreme Court ruling in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India.
Title: Ruchir Agrawal v. Public Enterprises Selection Board & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 870
The Delhi High Court has ruled that Cost Accountants cannot be treated at par with Chartered Accountants in matters of public employment.
The court remarked that Cost Accountant and Chartered Accountant are not at all similarly placed and are governed by two independent statutes, and that it is for the employer to decide the qualifications for posts, keeping in view the nature of the job for which the advertisement has been issued.
Married Woman Can't Prosecute For Rape On False Pretext Of Marriage: Delhi High Court
Title: S Rajadurai v. State & Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 871
The Delhi High Court has ruled that a sexual relationship between two adults, who are legally married to other partners, cannot be considered an act for which legal protection is available.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said that an unmarried woman who is induced into a sexual relationship on the false pretext of marriage by someone, whom she believes to be legally eligible for marriage, may constitute an offence of rape. However, the court added, that when the victim herself is not legally eligible to marry someone else due to her existing marriage to another partner, she cannot claim to have been induced into a sexual relationship under false pretext of marriage.
Case Title: JRA INFRATECH v. ENGINEERING PROJECTS (INDIA) LIMITED
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 872
The Delhi High Court has reiterated that a question as to whether the arbitration agreement is vitiated by fraud should be left to the wisdom of the arbitrator who will be free to decide the same on the basis of the evidence and the Court exercising power under Section 11 of the A&C Act should not get into such a finding.
Justice Rekha Palli held that merely because a criminal complaint has been lodged against the petitioner for the alleged fraud is not a ground to refer the parties to arbitration when the dispute is squarely and undisputedly covered by the arbitration clause.
Case Title: Vivek Khanna v. OYO Apartments Investment LLP
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 873
The Delhi High Court has held that the sum agreed by the parties as liquidated damages would not dispense with the requirement of proof by the party claiming liquidated damages that it actually suffered a loss.
Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri held that a sum ascertained as liquidated damages in the contract is not in the nature of penalty, but is a pre-estimate of loss estimated by the parties likely to be suffered by a party in the event of breach of contract by the other party. It held that Liquidated damages are not payable merely as a penalty for breach of contract, if no loss is suffered.
Case Title: GOLD CROFT PROPERTIES PVT LTD v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 874
The Delhi High Court has observed that the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, does not postulate a separate “reason to believe” for each property which stands attached under the provisional attachment order passed under Section 5(1) of the enactment.
A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad made the observation while dismissing an appeal moved by M/S Gold Croft Properties Private Limited challenging the single judge’s order which upheld the order of PMLA Adjudicating Authority disposing of its application seeking deferment of the proceedings before on the ground that the Bench suffered from “coram non-judice”.
Case Title: KOMAL GUPTA v. AMRENDRA KUMAR GUPTA
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 875
The Delhi High Court has observed that family courts have to be a little liberal in family disputes and that the stringent test, as may be applicable to commercial disputes, cannot be applied in such cases.
Dealing with a case where a family court closed a wife’s right to file her written statement in the divorce proceedings, Justice Navin Chawla said:
“It is to be remembered that closing of the right to file written statement would result in grave personal consequences to the party concerned. The approach of the learned Family Court, therefore, has to be guided by the object of the Family Court, rather than the technicality of law.”
Title: Rahul Gupta v. State
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 876
The Delhi High Court has observed that filing a special leave petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court by a convict challenging the conviction constitutes a “special circumstance” for granting parole in terms of Rule 1211 of the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018.
“…this Court is of the opinion that the bar contained in Rule 1211 of the Delhi Prison Rules is not absolute. The ground taken herein, i.e., filing on an SLP constitutes a 'special circumstance' in terms of the said rule,” Justice Amit Sharma said.
Family Courts Can’t Compel Parties To Take Divorce If Not Mutually Acceptable: Delhi High Court
Title: ABC v. XYZ
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 877
The Delhi High Court has said that family courts cannot compel the parties to take divorce if not mutually acceptable and that their approach must be reconciliatory.
A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna made the observation while dismissing a husband’s appeal against a family court order rejecting his contempt petition against the wife for not having abided by the MoU whereby they had agreed to take divorce by mutual consent.
Case Title: NADEEM MAJID OOMERBHOY vs SH. GAUTAM TANK AND ORS
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 878
The Delhi High Court has ruled that it cannot returning a finding of infringement against the holder of a registered trade mark without invalidating its trademark registration in the first instance.
Justice C. Hari Shankar was hearing a suit for infringement of trademark, where the defendants were subsequently granted registration of the impugned trademark. The court remarked that by operation of Section 23(1) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, the registration dated back to 29th April 2004, i.e., the date of filing the application, which was notably before the date of filing of the trademark suit by the plaintiff. Therefore, the court said, it could not hold the defendants to be infringing the plaintiff’s trademark unless the court finds the registration of the defendants’ trademark to be invalid.
Case Title: RAM KISHOR ARORA v. DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT & ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 879
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition moved by Supertech Chairman Ram Kishor Arora challenging his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate in a money laundering case.
Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma said that no fundamental rights of Arora were violated and that there was nothing on record to suggest that he was denied right to consult or be defended by a legal practitioner.
“The petitioner here failed to show that the arrest of the petitioner is in violation of Section 19 of the PMLA,” the court said.
Delhi High Court Denies Bail To Man Booked Under UAPA In J&K Larger Conspiracy Case
Case Title: SUHAIL AHMAD THOKAR vs NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 880
The Delhi High Court on Friday dismissed an appeal against the Trial Court order denying bail to Suhail Ahmad Thokar, one of the accused charged under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA), in connection with the Jammu and Kashmir “larger conspiracy” case post revocation of Article 370 of the Constitution of India.
The court observed that several pieces of evidence were procured during the course of investigation that suggested the accused’s significant involvement in the larger conspiracy and in activities related to militancy and terrorism. It further noted that as per the chargesheet filed by NIA, the accused had attempted to arrange shelter for two militants associated with Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM), a banned terrorist organization listed in the First Schedule of the UAPA.
Title: UNION OF INDIA v. MS. KIRAN KANOJIA and other connected matters
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 881
The Delhi High Court has said that there is an urgent need for a system that prevents unnecessary and frivolous litigation concerning government departments or bodies which should focus on conducting audit of decision-making process to contest cases.
The court added that such a mechanism must also focus of the principles of responsibility and accountability of erring government officials.
Unsubstantiated Judicial Remarks Against CBI Demoralizes Entire Agency: Delhi High Court
Case Title: CBI v. SHYAMAL GHOSH & ORS
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 882
The Delhi High Court has observed that unsubstantiated judicial remarks against the Central Bureau of Investigation demoralizes the entire agency, calling it India’s “premier investigating agency.”
“…. the function assigned to investigating agency is very sensitive in nature. It is also pertinent to note that the CBI is the premier investigating agency of this country and any observation or remarks which does not have substantive basis, demoralise the entire agency itself,” Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma observed.
Title: RAJAN DEVI v. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 883
The Delhi High Court has said that derogatory terms that perpetuate gender stereotypes and undermine the dignity and rights of individuals based on their gender should not be used in pleadings.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said that the ‘Handbook on Combating Gender Stereotypes’ launched by the Supreme Court recently may be used while drafting pleadings as well as the orders and judgments.
Case Title: ASHOK SINGH BHADAURIA vs CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 884
The Delhi High Court on Friday granted bail to two former-Uttar Pradesh Police officers who were convicted in the case involving the custodial death of the Unnao rape survivor’s father.
Ashok Singh Bhadauria and Kamta Prasad Singh (appellants) were convicted by the Trial Court on 04.03.2020, along with co-accused Kuldeep Singh Sengar and 3 others, for several offences including criminal conspiracy and culpable homicide not amounting to murder, and were sentenced to 10 years in jail. Their appeals against the conviction and sentencing order is pending before the court.
Case Title: UJJWAL SHORI (THROUGH HIS NATURAL GUARDIAN) v. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 885
The Delhi High Court has asked the Delhi Government to revisit the existing rules or consider drafting new rules on the eligibility criteria of candidates seeking admissions to educational institutions in respect of their domicile or permanent residency status.
A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula said that the said rules should determine the criteria for designating someone as a domicile or permanent for admissions and also for granting suitable relaxation to genuine residents of Delhi “who are rendered ineligible due to fortuitous circumstances.”
Case Title: Sumitomo Mitsui Financial Group Inc. Versus CIT
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 886
The Delhi High Court has deleted the tax demand against Sumitomo Mitsui Financial Group on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction.
The bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Girish Kathpalia has observed that the jurisdiction on the withholding tax liability on the transaction of share purchase by the Assessee was already exercised by the tax authority based in Mumbai, thus the tax authority based in Delhi had no jurisdiction to pass the order.
Case Title: ROHAN PANDEY v. STATE THROUGH SHO PS PALAM VILLAGE AND ANR
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 887
While quashing a POCSO case after settlement between parties who were young individuals, the Delhi High Court has directed the accused’s father to arrange free health checkups by Orthopaedic doctors for teachers in 10 government schools in the national capital.
Justice Saurabh Banerjee asked the accused’s father, presently working as Chief Administrative Officer of Indian Orthopaedic Association, to arrange Orthopaedic Surgeons or doctors associated with the said association to provide free medical health checkup for the teachers.
Case Title: MISS TANISHKA v. ANR v. GNCTD & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 888
The Delhi High Court has said that the Ordinance of the Universities for self-regulation cannot override a student’s right to education and the right to live a life with human dignity.
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav observed that the Universities should not be rigid while taking decisions in those cases where cogent reasons are given by students for seeking migration.
Case Title: THE BHAKTIVEDANTA BOOK TRUST, INDIA v. HTTPS://BHAGAVATAM.IN/#GSC.TAB=0 & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 889
Observing that no copyright can be claimed in religious scriptures, the Delhi High Court has ruled that adaptions of such work, including making TV series or creating dramatic works, would be entitled to copyright protection.
Justice Prathiba M Singh made the observation while dealing with a suit filed Bhaktivedanta Book Trust created by a renowned scholar and spiritual leader Srila Prabhupada, against various websites, mobile applications and social media accounts which were allegedly disseminating its copyrighted works, including Bhagavat Gita and other religious books.
Case Title: P v. THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 890
The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi Government to issue a notification prescribing the manner in which the details about completion of investigation and filing of final report is to be given by officer-in-charge of a police station to the complainant in terms of Section 173(2)(ii) of CrPC.
In an order passed on September 04, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma directed that the notification may be issued within three months.
Case Title: JOSEPH VARGHESE v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 891
The Delhi High Court has ordered release of Rs. 1 crore ex-gratia compensation to the husband and minor son of a health care worker who died on COVID-19 duty during the first wave of pandemic.
Justice Prathiba M Singh directed that Rs. 50 lakhs be released to the husband whereas the remaining Rs. 50 lakhs shall be released to the son.
Delhi High Court Calls For Uniform Eligibility Conditions For Recruitment To Various Teaching Posts
Case Title: NAVEEN SHARMA v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 892
The Delhi High Court has called for uniform and consistent eligibility conditions for recruitment to the posts of primary teachers, post graduate teachers and trained graduate teachers respectively, and has asked the Union Ministry of Higher Education to look into the matter.
“It may be in consonance with the objective of National Education Policy to streamline and provide uniform/consistent eligibility conditions for the recruitment to the posts of Primary Teachers, TGTs and PGTs since the curriculum to be taught is generally similar across different educational boards including CBSE,” a division bench of Justice V Kameswar Rao and Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta said.
Case Title: Raja v. State & Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 893
The Delhi High Court has quashed an FIR registered between neighbours after settlement between them and asked the accused to offer social service at Hanuman temple situated at Connaught Place for 40 days.
Justice Jyoti Singh allowed the petition moved by the accused Raja seeking quashing of an FIR which was registered in 2018 under Section 354 (outraging modesty of a woman) of Indian Penal Code and Section 12 (punishment for sexual harassment) of POCSO Act.
Case Title: Disha A Ravi v. State
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 894
The Delhi High Court has dismissed the plea moved by climate activist Disha Ravi, accused in the 2021 “toolkit case”, seeking modification of a bail condition requiring her to obtain prior permission from court each time before travelling abroad.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma rejected the petition moved by Ravi seeking modification of the bail condition which read as “She shall not leave the country without the permission of the court.”
Case Title: X v. Y
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 895
The Delhi High Court has observed that making friends at workplace or otherwise when both husband and wife have been living separately due to work exigencies cannot be termed as cruelty.
A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna observed that a person who is living alone may find solace by having friends, and merely because such individual used to talk to friends can neither be held to be an act of ignoring the spouse nor a cruel act.
Case Title: DEEPAK VERMA v. STATE & ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 896
While quashing a sexual harassment case after settlement between the parties, the Delhi High Court has directed the accused to contribute Rs. 25,000 in the form of woollen blankets to a shelter home for girls in the national capital.
Justice Jyoti Singh allowed the accused’s plea for quashing of the FIR registered in 2014 under Section 354 (outraging modesty of a woman), 354A (sexual harassment), 354D (stalking), 506 (criminal intimidation) and 509 (word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman) of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Title: AS v. NN
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 897
The Delhi High Court has observed that if a wife starts working to supplement daily expenditure for herself and the child due to financial crunch, it is not a ground to reduce maintenance payable to her by her husband.
A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna dismissed a husband’s appeal challenging a family court order refusing to modify monthly maintenance of Rs. 8,000 to the wife and Rs. 3,000 for the minor child.
Title: KARTIKYA SWAMI & ORS. v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 898
The Delhi High Court has asked a man to make contributions towards the "green cover" of the national capital, while quashing an FIR registered against him and his family members by his wife. The parties had reached a settlement after divorce by mutual consent.
Justice Saurabh Banerjee asked the husband to provide 500 ml of “Organic Fungicide for Plants” to five police stations in Delhi within two weeks.
Case Title: SUBHASHINI RATAN & ORS. vs LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY SECRETARIAT NCT OF DELHI & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 899
The Delhi High Court recently stayed the order of the Delhi Legislative Assembly Secretariat disengaging the services of Fellows and Associate Fellows under the Delhi Assembly Research Centre Fellowship Programme.
The tenure of petitioners was terminated prematurely on the ground that the reservation policy had not been followed while making the appointments and that the approval of the Lt. Governor had not been taken.
Case Title: OMID HUSSAIN KHIL @ UMED MILAD v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 900
The Delhi High Court has observed that the right of a convict to file a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court cannot be denied solely based on the severity of the offence or the availability of free legal assistance even if such a plea can be filed from jail itself.
The Court said that every individual has the right to “effectively pursue their legal recourse in the ultimate court of justice within the nation” accomplished by submitting a SLP through a chosen legal representative.
Case Title: Vinod Kumar vs G.N.C.T. of Delhi and Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 901
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the period under which an employee is placed under suspension, cannot be treated as period “not spent on duty” for all intents and purposes. The court remarked that the period can be treated as “not spent on duty” only for the purposes of back wages and not for the purposes of seniority and promotion.
Case Title: NHAI v. D.S. Toll Roads Pvt Ltd
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 902
The Delhi High Court has held that delay in the handing over of the Right of Way is a material breach of contract if it affects the issuance of Completion Certificate or delays the Commercial Date of Operation (COD).
Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri upheld an arbitral award wherein the arbitrator held NHAI to be in material breach of the contract for its failure to provide the Right of Way or the work front to the contractor which resulted in the delay in issuance of provisional completion certificate and delayed commercial date of operation.
Case Title: DLF Limited v. PNB Housing Finance Limited
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 903
The Delhi High Court has held that the right of the pledgee to sell the pledged shares for default to repay the loan amount is subservient to the right of the pledgor to redeem such shares under Section 177 of Indian Contract Act.
Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri held that the pledged shares cannot be sold by the pledgee without deciding on the offer made by the pledgor to redeem such shares
Delhi High Court Asks UGC To Take Action Against Colleges Offering Unspecified Degrees
Case Title: RAHUL MAHAJAN v. MINISTRY OF EDUCATION & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 904
The Delhi High Court has directed the University Grants Commission (UGC) to take necessary action against the varsities and colleges offering unspecified degrees and ensure compliance of law including penal provisions on the issue.
A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula observed that the purpose of providing specification of degrees approved by UGC is to maintain uniformity in the standards of education.
Case Title: SNV AVIATION PVT LTD & ANR. v. DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF CIVIL AVIATION & ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 905
While dealing with a plea moved by budget carrier Akasa Air in relation to resignation of its pilots without serving mandatory notice period, the Delhi High Court has said that the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) is at liberty to act against the defaulting pilots in case they are in breach of the contract.
Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh observed that in case of non-compliance of the contract, the Civil Aviation Rules, 2017 become operative and thus, DGCA can act in accordance with the said Rules as well as the extant law against the party in breach.
Case Title: PADMAJA GARIKIPATI v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 906
The Delhi High Court has stayed the election of the office bearers and members of executive committee of the Gymnastics Federation of India (GFI).
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav observed that the Federation was in non-compliance of the mandate of an order passed on August 16 last year wherein a division bench ordered that the Indian Olympic Association and National Sports Federation have to necessarily comply with the mandate stated under the National Sports Development Code of India, 2011.
Delhi High Court Upholds Restriction On MCOCA Inmates To Meet Family Members Only
Case Title: S. DAYA SINGH LAHORIA AND ORS. v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 907
The Delhi High Court has upheld the restriction put by the prison authorities on the inmates booked under Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999, to meet only their family members and no one else.
This was after prison authorities submitted that they are authorized to separate high-risk prisoners or prisoners perceived as security threats, and lodge them in high security wards.
Case Title: VBM MEDIZINTECHNIK GMBH vs GEETAN LUTHRA
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 908
The Delhi High Court recently dismissed the attempt of an Indian entity to invoke the holy Trinity of Hindu gods- Brahma, Vishnu and Mahesh- to justify the use of a mark which allegedly infringed a German medical equipment company’s “VBM” mark.
While granting interim relief to the latter, bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar said,
“The “Vishnu Brahma Mahesh” explanation is too facile to pass legal muster, besides being unsupported by any corroborative documentary evidence,” the court said.
Theos v. Theobroma: Delhi High Court Closes Trademark Infringement Suit, Issues Clarifications
Case Title: THEOS FOOD PVT. LTD. & ORS. v. THEOBROMA FOODS PVT. LTD.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 909
The Delhi High Court has decreed with certain clarifications a trademark infringement suit between two competing bakery entities Theos and Theobroma, after a settlement between them.
Delhi High Court Restrains Rogue Websites From Screening ICC Cricket World Cup Matches
Case Title: STAR INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR. v. JIOLIVE.TV & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 910
The Delhi High Court has restrained nine rogue websites from screening or disseminating any part of the ICC World Cup cricket matches on any electronic or digital platform.
“Rogue websites, which in the past have indulged in piracy of copyrighted content, are very likely to continue communicating copyrighted works to the public during the currency of World Cup 2023. Thus, there is a need to restrain any rogue websites from disseminating and communicating to the public any part of the cricket match events without authorisation or license from the Plaintiffs,” Justice Prathiba M Singh said.
Case Title: GR Builders v. Metro Speciality Hospitals Pvt Ltd
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 911
The Delhi High Court has held that the accrual of cause of action at a place for pursuing a substantive legal action is not a consideration for determining jurisdiction for the purposes of Section 11 of the A&C Act.
Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri reiterated that the place of arbitration would be the seat of arbitration when there is no contrary indicia present in the agreement to show that the place of arbitration was not intended to be the seat of arbitration.
Title: Sarvesh v. AIIMS & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 912
The Delhi High Court has constituted a seven member Committee to streamline the process of availing free medical treatment under various government schemes in the hospitals in the national capital.
A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula said that the Committee will give recommendations for “alleviating and curing the defects” in the current system to avail financial assistance.
Title: JAINEMO PRIVATE LIMITED v. RAHUL SHAH AND OTHERS
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 913
The Delhi High Court has restrained various entities from circulating or sharing the course materials of online education platform “Apna College” on WhatsApp groups, telegram and YouTube channels.
Justice Prathiba M Singh was dealing with Apna College’s suit alleging infringement of its copyrighted content by 17 defendant entities who were disseminating its courses, including printed course materials, videos, etc. on social media platforms like WhatsApp, Telegram and YouTube.
Title: SP Singh Dhillon v. Delhi Capital Badminton Association & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 914
The Delhi High Court has appointed retired judge of Allahabad High Court, Justice Pankaj Naqvi, as administrator of the Delhi Capital Badminton Association.
A division bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Dharmesh Sharma ordered that Justice Naqvi shall be entitled to take over the day-to-day affairs and administration of the Association, subject to further orders.
Case Title: NHAI v. GMR Ambala Chandigarh Expressway Private Limited
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 915
The Delhi High Court has held that development, improvement, widening and construction over an existing narrow highway would be considered to be a ‘bypass’ when such improvement makes the road viable for heavy vehicles and becomes an alternate road, resulting in reduction of the traffic from the project highway, affecting the toll revenue.
The bench of Justices Suresh Kumar Kait and Neena Bansal Krishna upheld the setting aside of an arbitral award wherein the tribunal had rejected the claims of the contractor by observing that the widening or development of an existing road would not be a ‘bypass’ even if does lead to reduction in the traffic on the project highway.
Title: Jitendr Lala & Ors vs The State Of Delhi & Anr
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 916
While quashing an FIR after settlement between the parties, the Delhi High Court has directed three accused to arrange bus ride for “Delhi Darshan” for senior citizens residing in an old age home in the national capital.
Justice Saurabh Banerjee asked the accused persons to collectively arrange a bus on hire for taking the senior citizens for Delhi Darshan for a minimum duration of 4 hours.