Citations 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 385 to 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 416NOMINAL INDEXSURJIT SINGH YADAV v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 385Sunil Kumar & Ors. v. The State & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 386Shri Nomil Rana v. The Union of India and Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 387BEJON KUMAR MISRA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 388Good Life Zip India Versus Commissioner Of...
Citations 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 385 to 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 416
NOMINAL INDEX
SURJIT SINGH YADAV v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 385
Sunil Kumar & Ors. v. The State & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 386
Shri Nomil Rana v. The Union of India and Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 387
BEJON KUMAR MISRA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 388
Good Life Zip India Versus Commissioner Of Delhi Goods And Service Tax & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 389
Hfcl Limited Vs Bharat Broadband Network Limited 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 390
X v. Y 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 391
STATE v. AFROZ @ SHARIB & ANR. and other connected matter 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 392
GOOGLE LLC v. THE CONTROLLER OF PATENTS 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 393
HALDIRAM INDIA PVT. LTD v. BERACHAH SALES CORPORATION & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 394
ASHWINI KUMAR UPADHYAY v. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 395
Mr. Dushyant Chikara v. Fauzia Sultana 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 396
Valley Iron & Steel Co.Ltd Versus PCIT 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 397
Sharad Gupta & Ors Vs Shri Vinayak Infraland Pvt. Ltd. & Ors 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 398
Union Of India vs M/s Gitwako Farms Private Limited & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 399
Startupwala Pvt. Ltd v. Google India Pvt Ltd 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 400
BBNL v. Sterlite Technologies Ltd 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 401
COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v UNION OF INDIA 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 402
SH. ANUJ MALHOTRA v. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 403
VISHNU GUPTA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 404
Parveen Kumar vs Export Inspection Council & Ors 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 405
LAVA INTERNATIONAL LIMITED v. TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON and other connected matter 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 406
PCIT Versus Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 407
X v. Y 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 408
Balbir Chand v Jawahar Lal Nehru University 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 409
ASHWINI KUMAR UPADHYAY v. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 410
RAZORPAY SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR v. JOHN DOE & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 411
ASHOK KUMAR versus The State N.C.T Of Delhi 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 412
I S v. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 413
Neeraj Sharma v. Union of India & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 414
Agra Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. Versus Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 415
Blackberry India Pvt Ltd -Earlier Known As Research In Motion India Pvt Ltd Versus The Commissioner CGST 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 416
Title: SURJIT SINGH YADAV v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 385
The Delhi High Court has disposed of a public interest litigation to prevent Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal from issuing directions or orders while in the custody of the Enforcement Directorate (ED) following his arrest in the liquor policy case.
A division bench comprising of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora asked the central probe agency to bring the issue to the attention of District judge dealing with Kejriwal's case.
Onus To Establish Employee-Employer Relationship Rests On the Claimant: Delhi High Court
Case: Sunil Kumar & Ors. v. The State & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 386
A single-judge bench of the Delhi High Court comprising of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh while deciding a writ petition in the case of Sunil Kumar & Ors. v. The State & Ors. has reiterated that the onus to establish the relationship of employee-employer between the management and the workman is on the claimant, i.e., the person who sets up a plea of existence of such relationship between the parties.
Case: Shri Nomil Rana v. The Union of India and Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 387
A two-judge bench of the Delhi High Court comprising of Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Saurabh Banerjee while deciding a writ petition in the case of Shri Nomil Rana v. Union of India and Ors. has held that suppression of the material information regarding pendency of Criminal Case by a person seeking appointment to a police post wherein he is required to maintain public order has bearing on his suitability to hold the post in question.
Title: BEJON KUMAR MISRA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 388
The Delhi High Court has recently rejected a PIL seeking constitution of a High Powered Committee for looking into the complete affairs of all the co-operative banks.
A division bench comprising of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora said that such a prayer falls in the domain of policy making by the Executive and Legislature.
Case Title: Good Life Zip India Versus Commissioner Of Delhi Goods And Service Tax & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 389
The Delhi High Court has held that simply because a taxpayer has not filed the returns for some period does not mean that the taxpayer's registration is required to be cancelled with a retrospective date.
The bench of Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Ravinder Dudeja has held that in terms of Section 29(2) of the Act, the proper officer may cancel the GST registration of a person from such date, including any retrospective date, as he may deem fit if the circumstances set out in the sub-section are satisfied. Registration cannot be cancelled with retrospective effect mechanically.
Case Title: Hfcl Limited Vs Bharat Broadband Network Limited
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 390
The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh appointed Justice Mukta Gupta (Retd.) as an arbitrator for a dispute where a Petitioner invoked arbitration by referring to the work orders signed by the parties. The High Court observed the identical nature of the arbitration clauses in the tender and the work orders and held that there was no ambiguity even if the tender prevailed over the work orders in case of any conflict or ambiguity.
Delhi High Court Grants Divorce To Indian Chef On Grounds Of Cruelty By Wife
Title: X v. Y
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 391
The Delhi High Court has granted divorce to an Indian Chef from his wife on the grounds of cruelty by her.
A division bench comprising of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna observed that the conduct of the wife towards him has been such that it is devoid of dignity and empathy towards him.
Delhi High Court Orders ₹5 Lakh Compensation To Two Acid Attack Victims, Employment In Any Government Department
Title: STATE v. AFROZ @ SHARIB & ANR. and other connected matter
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 392
The Delhi High Court has directed Delhi State Legal Services Authority (DSLSA) to grant Rs. 5 lakh compensation each to two acid attack victims and bring forward proposal or prospects for their employment in any Department of the Delhi Government to ensure their rehabilitation.
A division bench comprising of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna further directed DSLSA to get a fresh medical check up of the victims, who suffered the attack in 2009, at All India Institute of Medical Sciences within two weeks.
Delhi High Court Dismisses Google's Appeal Against Rejection Of Patent, Imposes ₹1 Lakh Costs
Title: GOOGLE LLC v. THE CONTROLLER OF PATENTS
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 393
The Delhi High Court has imposed Rs. 1 lakh costs on Google LLC while dismissing its appeal against the refusal of the grant of a patent by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs in 2019.
Justice Prathiba M Singh ordered that 50% of the costs shall be deposited by Google with the office of Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks (CGPTDM) and remaining to be paid to the Union Government's standing counsel.
Title: HALDIRAM INDIA PVT. LTD v. BERACHAH SALES CORPORATION & ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 394
The Delhi High Court has declared “Haldiram” as a well-known trademark, observing that the origins of the multinational sweets, snacks and restaurant company is deeply rooted in India's rich culinary tradition.
Justice Prathiba M Singh said that Haldiram has not only established a presence within the national market but has also extended its influence globally, transcending geographical, cultural, and national boundaries.
Title: ASHWINI KUMAR UPADHYAY v. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 395
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday disposed of a PIL seeking direction on the Union Government to take steps to ensure that foreign travel companies do not share with anyone the confidential and personal data of consumers like name, Aadhar number, passport details etc during ticket booking.
A division bench comprising of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora disposed of the plea moved by lawyer and BJP leader Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay and asked him to approach the Union Government by way of a representation.
Case Title: Mr. Dushyant Chikara v. Fauzia Sultana
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 396
The Single Bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma of Delhi High Court has held that merely because a criminal case of forgery/fabrication has been registered in relation to an agreement, any civil/commercial dispute arising out of such agreement would not become non-arbitrable.
Case Title: Valley Iron & Steel Co.Ltd Versus PCIT
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 397
The Delhi High Court has held that income tax additions made towards unsubstantiated share capital are eligible for deduction under Section 80-IC of the Income Tax Act.
Case Title: Sharad Gupta & Ors Vs Shri Vinayak Infraland Pvt. Ltd. & Ors
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 398
The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh held that under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 there is no provision for splitting of parties and referring part of the subject matter to arbitration. It held that where a suit encompasses matters outside the arbitration agreement and involves parties not party to the said agreement, Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 does not apply.
Case Title: Union Of India vs M/s Gitwako Farms Private Limited & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 399
The Delhi High Court division bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju rejected an application for condonation of delay and termed it unreasonable that it took the Appellant nearly two months to collate documents that should have been readily available, considering they would have been submitted with the initial application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Case Title: Startupwala Pvt. Ltd v. Google India Pvt Ltd
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 400
The High Court of Delhi has directed Google India to maintain status quo in respect of advertisement displayed on its platforms by observing that the main revenue for a party in an advertisement agreement comes from the ad revenue and en masse blocking of ads would result in irreparable loss to that party.
Case Title: BBNL v. Sterlite Technologies Ltd
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 401
The Single Bench of Justice Prateek Jalan has referred the question 'Whether non-filing of statement of truth with a Challenge Petition would make the filing non-est' to a larger bench in view of conflicting views taken by two Division Benches.
Delhi High Court Asks Its Judges To Prioritize Criminal Cases, Appeals Against MPs, MLAs
Case Title : COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v UNION OF INDIA
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 402
The Delhi High Court has asked its judges to prioritise the criminal cases, appeals or revisions pending against MPs and MLAs.
“…we direct the Registry of this Court to circulate this order to brother and sister Judges assigned with such cases so that priority is given to all criminal cases/appeals/revisions pending before them against the members of Parliament and Legislative Assemblies, as it is essential for expeditious and effective disposal of such cases,” a division bench headed by Acting Chief Justice Manmohan said.
Delhi High Court Dismisses PIL To Ban Cross Gender Massages In Spas
Title: SH. ANUJ MALHOTRA v. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 403
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation seeking a direction on the Delhi Government to ban cross-gender massages in spas or massage centres in the national capital.
A division bench comprising of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Singh Arora said that a single judge is already seized of the controversy and thus the PIL cannot be entertained.
Title: VISHNU GUPTA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 404
The Delhi High Court has refused to entertain a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking removal of Arvind Kejriwal, who has been arrested by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in the liquor policy case, from the post of Chief Minister of Delhi.
“At times, personal interest has to be subordinate to national interest. But that is his (Kejriwal's) personal opinion. If he does not want to do that it's upto him. We are a court of law…Do you have any precedent that president's rule or governor's rule has been imposed by the court?” a division bench headed by Acting Chief Justice Manmohan remarked.
Case Name: Parveen Kumar vs Export Inspection Council & Ors
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 405
A single judge bench of the Delhi High Court comprising of Justice Tushar Rao Gedela while deciding a Civil Writ Petition in the case of Parveen Kumar vs Export Inspection Council & Ors has held that a retired officer appointed as Inquiry Officer does not fulfil the criteria of “public servant” under Rule 11(2) of the Export Inspection Employees (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1978 (EIA Rules).
Title: LAVA INTERNATIONAL LIMITED v. TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON and other connected matter
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 406
The Delhi High Court has awarded Rs. 244 crores damages to Ericsson in a suit filed by it against Lava International Limited over infringement of Standard Essential Patents (SEPs).
Justice Amit Bansal acknowledged the transformative impact of the evolution of mobile telecommunications in India, which has opened up access to information and digital services, leading to a more connected and digitally empowered society.
Case Title: PCIT Versus Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 407
The Delhi High Court has quashed the initiation of assessment proceedings under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, which was falling beyond the maximum 10-year block period.
Title: X v. Y
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 408
The Delhi High Court has said that the wife leaving the matrimonial home from time to time without any fault of the husband is an act of mental cruelty.
A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna granted divorce to a husband on the ground of cruelty and desertion by the wife under Section 13 (1) (i- a) and 13 (1) (i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Title: Balbir Chand v Jawahar Lal Nehru University
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 409
In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court has overturned Jawaharlal Nehru University's (JNU) expulsion of a student dating back to 2011, highlighting serious procedural irregularities and a lack of adherence to principles of natural justice.
Justice C Hari Shankar, presiding over the case, criticized JNU for its "predetermined intent" against the student and emphasized the importance of upholding fairness in disciplinary proceedings. The court directed the university to allow the student to complete his Master of Computer Application (MCA) course if he so desires.
Title: ASHWINI KUMAR UPADHYAY v. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 410
The Delhi High Court has directed the Ministry of Ayush to treat as representation a public interest litigation seeking inclusion of Ayurveda, Yoga and Naturopathy in Union Government's public health insurance scheme Ayushman Bharat Pradhan Mantri Jan Arogya Yojana (PM-JAY).
A bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora directed the Ministry to decide the representation by way of a reasoned order as expeditiously as possible.
Title: RAZORPAY SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR v. JOHN DOE & ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 411
The Delhi High Court has restrained various unknown entities from using the “Razorpay” trademark after the payment getaway service provider filed a suit accusing them of using the mark unauthorizedly by perpetuating fraud on the general public by running a financial scam on the pretext of providing jobs.
Justice Sanjeev Narula directed that the WhatsApp and Telegram channels or accounts operated by the perpetrators be blocked, observing that a prima facie case was made out in favour of Razorpay for grant of an ex-parte ad interim injunction.
Case Title: ASHOK KUMAR versus The State N.C.T Of Delhi
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 412
The Delhi High Court has rejected a bail plea from a man accused of an acid attack seeking medical treatment at a private hospital instead of a mandated government facility. It emphasized that Government hospitals like DDU Hospital are obligated to offer comprehensive medical care, including specialized services, to all patients, including those in custody.
The Court noted that such facilities possess the requisite infrastructure, medical equipment, and expertise to effectively address a broad spectrum of health concerns.
Title: I S v. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 413
The Delhi High Court has observed that whenever a woman makes a reasoned choice to establish physical relations, the consent cannot be said to based on misconception of fact unless there is clear evidence that a false promise was given.
Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta said that the promise must be of immediate relevance and bear a direct nexus to a decision by the woman to engage in a sexual act.
Case Title: Neeraj Sharma v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 414
The Delhi High Court has appointed its former judge, Justice Najmi Waziri, as the Chairman of the Internal Departmental Committee constituted for protection and management of deemed forests in the national capital.
Justice Tushar Rao Gedela requested the Delhi Government to ensure that all facilities and secretarial assistance, as required by Justice Waziri, is provided to him at the earliest.
Delhi High Court Interpretes Rule 11UA For Determination FMV Of Shares U/S 56(2)(viib)
Case Title: Agra Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. Versus Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 415
The Delhi High Court has held that it has interpreted Rule 11UA of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, for determining the fair market value (FMV) of shares under Section 56(2)(viib) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Case Title: Blackberry India Pvt Ltd -Earlier Known As Research In Motion India Pvt Ltd Versus The Commissioner CGST
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 416
The Delhi High Court has held that the department cannot, after being unsuccessful before this Court on its own, declare the refund of the CENVAT credit as well as interest on delayed payments to be an erroneous refund.