Citations 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 714 to 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 756NOMINAL INDEXRajani Kumari v. BCD 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 714 ABHISHEK @ LOVE & ORS. v. THE STATE NCT OF DELHI & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 715 Government of NCT of Delhi v. R.S. Sharma Contractors Pvt Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 716 DGIT Versus The Indian Plywood Mfg. Co. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 717 VENUS WORLDWIDE ENTERTAINMENT PRIVATE...
Citations 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 714 to 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 756
NOMINAL INDEX
Rajani Kumari v. BCD 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 714
ABHISHEK @ LOVE & ORS. v. THE STATE NCT OF DELHI & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 715
Government of NCT of Delhi v. R.S. Sharma Contractors Pvt Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 716
DGIT Versus The Indian Plywood Mfg. Co. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 717
VENUS WORLDWIDE ENTERTAINMENT PRIVATE LIMITED v. POPULAR ENTERTAINMENT NETWORK (PEN) PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 718
UNIVERSAL CITY STUDIOS LLC. AND ORS. v. DOTMOVIES.BABY AND ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 719
SAGAR v. THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT) 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 720
Sachin Arora v. State of GNCT of Delhi 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 721
STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI v. MOHD K. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 722
Raghav Bahl v. ED and other connected matter 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 723
NIDHI KAPOOR v. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER AND ADDITIONAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA & ORS. and other connected matters 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 724
STATE v. USHA DEVI & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 725
STATE v. HARIPAL and other connected matters 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 726
STATE v. DHEERAJ SHARMA & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 727
SMT. K.S. SUMI MOL v. SH. SURESH KUMAR E.K. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 728
SEEMA CHOPRA v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. and other connected matters 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 729
Flipkart India Private Limited Versus Value Added Tax Officer 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 730
KARAN S THUKRAL v. THE DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE & ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 731
Spelndor Landbase Ltd v. Aparna Ashram Society 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 732
Girish Kumari Gupta v. UOI and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 733
NOVA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 734
Splendor Landbase Ltd v. Aparna Ashram Society 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 735
SJ v. S 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 736
KSG v. P 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 737
Nishkarsh Singh Patel vs National Medical Commission & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 738
NHAI v. Trichy Thanjavur Expressway Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 739
VASU BAJAJ v. RAKESH BAJAJ 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 740
PEOPLE FOR THE ETHICAL TREATMENT OF ANIMALS (PETA) INDIA v. THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 741
NHAI v. Trichy Thanjavur Expressway Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 742
ANNWESHA DEB v. DELHI STATE LEGAL SERVICES AUTHORITY 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 743
SpiceJet Limited vs Kal Airways Pvt Ltd & Ors. and other connected matter 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 744
X v. Y 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 745
M/S.RSPL HEALTH PRIVATE LIMITED v. RECKITT AND COLMAN (OVERSEAS) HYGIENE HOME LIMITED & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 746
X v. Y 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 747
TIMES NOW NAVBHARAT v. NARESH BALIYAN 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 748
Shri Anil Kumar v. Election Commission of India & Anr 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 749
PCIT Versus M/S National Fertilizers Ltd. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 750
RAKESH KUMAR KALRA DEAF DIVAYANG v. STATE GOVT OF NCT DELHI 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 751
RAHUL v. STATE OF DELHI 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 752
Saurabh Shukla v. Max Bupa Insurance & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 753
Selishia Mohandas v. UOI & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 754
CHRISTIAN LOUBOUTIN SAS & ANR. v. M/S THE SHOE BOUTIQUE – SHUTIQ 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 755
M/S. Hanuman Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Additional Director General Directorate General Of GST 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 756
Case Title: Rajani Kumari v. BCD
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 714
The Delhi High Court has directed the Bar Council of Delhi to notify on its website the notification which withdrew an earlier notification issued on April 13 making filing of Aadhar Card and Voter ID bearing address of Delhi or NCR region mandatory for future enrolments.
A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula granted four weeks’ time to the lawyers’ body to notify the subsequent notification.
Case Title: ABHISHEK @ LOVE & ORS. v. THE STATE NCT OF DELHI & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 715
Observing that settlement of non-compoundable offences through mediation agreements is not permissible, the Delhi High Court has issued various guidelines to be followed in such cases by mediators in all mediation centres in the national capital.
“… to permit the accused and complainant to compromise an offence on payment of money, in session triable serious criminal cases which attracts punishment up to life, cannot be subject matter of mediated settlement agreements,” Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said.
Case Title: Government of NCT of Delhi v. R.S. Sharma Contractors Pvt Ltd, OMP(COMM) 130 of 2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 716
The Delhi High Court has held that mere execution of an NCC in favour of the employer would not disentitle the contractor from later claiming damages if it is shown that it was executed under duress and not out of free will.
Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri held that an endorsement given by Contractor, while seeking extension of time, would not come in its way in seeking escalation cost, especially when the delay was attributable to the employer.
Case Title: DGIT Versus The Indian Plywood Mfg. Co.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 717
The Delhi High Court has held that the income tax department is not under the obligation to grant additional tax concessions as per the order passed by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR).
The bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan has observed that the obligation to extend further concessions could not be imposed on the Central Government (Income Tax Department) without its consent. The Income Tax Department had not consented to extend any concession.
Case Title: VENUS WORLDWIDE ENTERTAINMENT PRIVATE LIMITED v. POPULAR ENTERTAINMENT NETWORK (PEN) PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 718
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the mark “Khiladi” pertaining to the 1992 Akshay Kumar starrer Bollywood movie and the mark “Khiladi” of a Telugu action thriller film which was released last year are prima facie not similar.
Justice Jyoti Singh dismissed the application seeking interim injunction filed by Venus Worldwide Entertainment Private Limited, the production company which produced the 1992 movie, in its trademark infringement suit against filmmakers of the Telugu movie.
Case Title: UNIVERSAL CITY STUDIOS LLC. AND ORS. v. DOTMOVIES.BABY AND ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 719
The Delhi High Court has passed a “dynamic+ injunction” order restraining various vogue websites from streaming the existing as well as future content of six American studios.
Justice Prathiba M Singh passed the ex parte ad interim injunction in favour of Universal City Studios LLC, Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc, Columbia Pictures Industries Inc., Netflix Studios LLC, Paramount Pictures Corporation and Disney Enterprises Inc, in their suit against the rogue websites.
Case Title: SAGAR v. THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT)
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 720
Observing that discovering husband’s infidelity shortly after marriage can have devastating effects on the mental and emotional well-being of a woman, the Delhi High Court has denied bail to a husband accused of abetting suicide of his wife who was found dead within 13 days after marriage.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed that the emotional trauma of discovering infidelity and subsequent ill behavior of a spouse can drive a woman to take extreme steps to the extent of committing suicide.
Case Title: Sachin Arora v. State of GNCT of Delhi
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 721
Observing that Section 50 of the NDPS Act will be attracted in case of 'comprehensive search' of belongings as well as personal search, the Delhi High Court has granted bail to a person accused of supplying heroin and apprehended under Sections 21 and 25 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS) in 2019.
Case Title: STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI v. MOHD K.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 722
The Delhi High Court has upheld the acquittal of a Muslim man in a rape case observing that his physical relationship with the child victim aged about 15 years, who was also his wife, cannot be termed as rape.
A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna upheld the trial court order which observed that no offence under Section 6 read with Section 5(1) of POCSO Act was made out against the man in view of the testimony of the child victim that she got married to him in December, 2014, and only thereafter did they have a physical relationship.
Case Title: Raghav Bahl v. ED and other connected matter
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 723
The Delhi High Court has allowed The Quint's founder Raghav Bahl and co-founder and his spouse Ritu Kapur to travel abroad to London and New York next month for attending business meetings between September 02 - September 16.
Justice Amit Bansal also suspended the Look Out Circular issued against them by the Enforcement Directorate in connection with a money laundering case, on the said dates.
Case Title: NIDHI KAPOOR v. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER AND ADDITIONAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA & ORS. and other connected matters
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 724
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the importation of gold is a “prohibited item” within the meaning of Section 2(33) of the Customs Act, 1962.
A division bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Dharmesh Sharma also observed that the redemption in case of importation of gold which is brought into India illegally in the form of smuggling does not entitle the owner or importer for automatic release of such item.
Case Title: STATE v. USHA DEVI & ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 725
Pulling up the Delhi Police for conducting “terrible and unfair investigation”, the Delhi High Court has acquitted two accused persons and awarded them Rs. 50,000 compensation each, since the prosecution “floated trial” despite lack of evidence against them.
A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna gave a word of caution to the prosecution agencies to carry out investigation in a prudent manner and said that the trial courts are expected to judiciously assess the material placed on record, “so that no innocent has to bear the torment of incarceration.”
Case Title: STATE v. HARIPAL and other connected matters
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 726
The Delhi High Court has observed that procuring call detail records, including the tower-wise location of the police officials can prejudice their safety and privacy.
“The concerned police officers may be involved in dealing with cases of different nature, including sensitive or heinous cases or cases of national security, and orders, such as those impugned before this Court, can directly encroach upon the privacy of the police officials,” Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said.
Case Title: STATE v. DHEERAJ SHARMA & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 727
The Delhi High Court has deprecated the Delhi Police for conducting “lackadaisical investigation” in a dowry death case and said that no effort was made by the probe agency to ascertain the actual cause of death of the 23-years-old deceased woman.
“The ante mortem injuries and the Post Mortem Report clearly pointed out that it may be a case of homicidal death despite which the Investigating Agency has not even made any effort to conduct thorough investigations to ascertain the actual cause of death,” a division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna said.
Case Title: SMT. K.S. SUMI MOL v. SH. SURESH KUMAR E.K.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 728
The Delhi High Court has issued a slew of directions to the family courts in the national capital for speedy disposal of cases relating to marriage and family affairs within a time frame, in the absence of any specific Rules regarding the same.
A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna directed that when a suit has been duly instituted, summons may be issued to the defendant to appear and answer the claim and to file the written statement of defence within 30 days.
Title: MS. SEEMA CHOPRA v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. and other connected matters
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 729
The Delhi High Court has ordered release of various “end of life vehicles” subject to an undertaking being furnished by their owners that such vehicles will not be plied on the streets or parked in any public space within the national capital and will be kept in a private parking space.
Justice Prateek Jalan also asked the Delhi Government to frame a policy to deal with similar vehicles in cases where the owners are ready to give an assurance that the vehicles will not be used in the national capital.
Case Title: Flipkart India Private Limited Versus Value Added Tax Officer
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 730
The Delhi High Court, while allowing the refund to Flipkart India, held that a pre-deposit made before the Objection Hearing Authority (OHA) cannot be adjusted against any other tax dues.
The bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Dharmesh Sharma has observed that Section 38(2) of the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 (DVAT Act) uses the expression "recovery of any other amount due under this Act".
Case Title: KARAN S THUKRAL v. THE DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE & ORS
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 731
The Delhi High Court has directed all the district courts in the national capital to adopt a “standardized online filing system” for pleadings, documents, and miscellaneous applications and issued a slew of directions to be followed till the time appropriate Rules are in place.
A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula directed the District Courts to centralize all filings related to ongoing and pending cases, similar to the existing procedure for new cases.
Case Title: Spelndor Landbase Ltd v. Aparna Ashram Society
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 732
The Delhi High Court has held that the true or certified copy of the agreement containing the arbitration agreement would be sufficient for the purpose of Section 11 petition when on the face of it, the same is duly stamped and a statement to this effect is made in the petition under Section 11 of the Act, and the same is not controverted by the opposite party.
Case Title: Girish Kumari Gupta v. UOI and Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 733
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation seeking directions on the Delhi Government to frame a policy to connect coaching centres with schools and colleges.
A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula observed that the court cannot direct the Delhi Government to frame such a policy and thus, it found no reason to grant the relief as prayed in the matter.
Case Title: NOVA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 734
The Delhi High Court has observed that an apex body like National Medical Commission is not expected to assess different institutions on different yardsticks, based on grounds that seem wholly arbitrary.
“The NMC is entrusted with the functions and duties conferred under the provisions of the NMC Act, 2019. The NMC and all autonomous Boards constituted under the NMC Act, 2019 discharge public function. The action of statutory bodies must conform to the norms and standards stipulated therein and are to be uniformly made applicable to all the institutions. Their action must necessarily be reasonable and free from any prejudice,” Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav observed.
Case Title: Splendor Landbase Ltd v. Aparna Ashram Society
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 735
The Delhi High Court while reiterating that it is mandatory for the Court exercising power under Section 11 of the A&C Act to impound the non-stamped or insufficiently stamped agreement held that the Court can itself collect the deficient/requisite stamp duty under Section 35 of the Stamps Act, 1899 and enable deposit of the requisite stamp duty along with penalty as contemplated under proviso (a) to Section 35 of the Stamp Act.
Case Title: SJ v. S
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 736
The Delhi High Court has held that wife's insistence to live separately from other family members of the husband without any justifiable reason can be termed as an act of 'cruelty'.
A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna added that such acrimonious atmosphere at home cannot be a conducive environment for a married couple to forge a cordial conjugal relationship.
Case Title: KSG v. P
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 737
The Delhi High Court has observed that a wife’s conduct of making false allegations against the husband and his family members and a constant threat to them regarding being summoned to the police station are acts of cruelty which severely impact mental balance.
A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna allowed a husband’s appeal against a family court order dismissing his petition seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion by the wife.
Case Title: Nishkarsh Singh Patel vs National Medical Commission & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 738
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a writ petition challenging the Graduate Medical Education Regulations 1997 as ultra vires and violative of the New Education Policy 2020, insofar as it requires an aspirant to have studied Physics, Chemistry, Biology and English together at 10+2 level.
The bench comprising Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Saurabh Banerjee was dealing with the plea of a candidate who had cleared his 10+2 back in 2010 with subjects Physics, Chemistry and Maths, and after obtaining a degree in engineering and masters in management, transgressed his career path to medicine.
Case Title: NHAI v. Trichy Thanjavur Expressway Ltd
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 739
The Delhi High Court has held that the Courts exercising powers under Section 34 of the A&C Act has the power to partially set aside an arbitration award to strike off the offending portion of the award while retaining the remaining award.
The bench of Justice Yashwant Varma held that the doctrine of severability of arbitration award is explicitly recognised under Section 34(2)(a)(iv) of the Act.
Title: VASU BAJAJ v. RAKESH BAJAJ
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 740
The Delhi High Court has ruled that arrears of maintenance by a husband becomes “debt” once the definite amount becomes payable to the dependent wife or children or parents which can be recovered by way of a civil suit.
A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna held that a civil suit for recovery of maintenance amount, which acquires the character of a “debt” is maintainable, once a final order is made under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.
Title: PEOPLE FOR THE ETHICAL TREATMENT OF ANIMALS (PETA) INDIA v. THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 741
The Delhi High Court has directed the Committee for the Purpose of Control and Supervision of Experiments on Animals and other government bodies to continue conducting routine inspections to assess the welfare and well-being of animals in preparation of anti-venom and anti-rabies serums.
A division bench comprising of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula also directed the authorities to initiate action against defaulting establishments under extant laws and regulations.
Case Title: NHAI v. Trichy Thanjavur Expressway Ltd
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 742
The Delhi High Court has held that the recourse to Section 34(4) of the A&C Act, that grants courts the authority to remit an arbitral award to the Arbitral Tribunal, can only be taken for correcting the curable defects such as filling the gaps in reasoning, correct typographical and arithmetical errors and not to allow the tribunal to do a review of the award.
Case Title: ANNWESHA DEB v. DELHI STATE LEGAL SERVICES AUTHORITY
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 743
The Delhi High Court has observed that pregnant working women are entitled to maternity benefits and cannot be denied reliefs under the Maternity Benefit Act, 2017, solely due to the nature of their employment.
“There is nothing in the language of the Act or in its provisions which suggests that a working expecting woman would be barred from getting the reliefs due to the sole reason of the nature of their employment,” Justice Chandra Dhari Singh ruled.
Case Title: SpiceJet Limited vs Kal Airways Pvt Ltd & Ors. and other connected matter
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 744
The Delhi High Court has refused to stay a single judge order upholding an arbitral award asking SpiceJet and its promoter Ajay Singh to refund of Rs. 579.08 crores plus interest to media baron Kalanithi Maran.
A division bench comprising of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Dharmesh Sharma dismissed the plea moved by SpiceJet seeking stay of the single judge order passed on July 31.
Title: X v. Y
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 745
The Delhi High Court has directed a shelter home in the national capital to provide counselling to parents of a 22-years-old lesbian woman, at least on alternative days, for accepting their daughter “as per her wishes.
A division bench of Chief Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna also ordered the shelter home’s Director to admit the woman for her stay, give her necessary facilities including food and shelter and provide her with counselling sessions.
Case Title: M/S.RSPL HEALTH PRIVATE LIMITED v. RECKITT AND COLMAN (OVERSEAS) HYGIENE HOME LIMITED & ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 746
The Delhi High Court has upheld the registration of “Harpic Drainxpert” trademark in favour of household goods manufacturer Reckitt and Colman.
Justice C Hari Shankar dismissed the appeals moved by RSPL Health Private Limited, engaged in manufacturing similar goods such as dish washing bars and gels under the mark 'Xpert', seeking rectification of Register of Trademarks by removing the mark “Harpic Drainxpert”.
Case Title: X v. Y
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 747
The Delhi High Court has observed that insistence of a wife’s family for her husband to abandon his parents, become a “Ghar Jamai” and live in their house amounts to cruelty.
A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna granted divorce to a couple, who got married in 2001 and started living separately after a year, on the ground of cruelty and desertion under the Hindu Marriage Act.
Case Title: TIMES NOW NAVBHARAT v. NARESH BALIYAN
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 748
The Delhi High Court has refused to entertain a plea moved by Times Now Navbharat challenging a trial court order restraining the news channel from telecasting a programme “Operation Paap” against Aam Aadmi Party MLA Naresh Balyan.
Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora refused to entertain the petition in light of the statutory provisions contained under Code of Civil Procedure and the remedies available with the news channel under the statute.
Case Title: Shri Anil Kumar v. Election Commission of India & Anr
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 749
The Delhi High Court has refused to entertain a PIL against the conduct of State Election Commission during the “First Level Check" of EVMs and VVPATs at eleven district offices in the national capital for their use in the 2024 Lok Sabha polls.
The petition was moved by Anil Kumar, President of Delhi Pradesh Congress Committee which is a unit of Indian National Congress party.
Case Title: PCIT Versus M/S National Fertilizers Ltd.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 750
The Delhi High Court has rejected the appeal of the income tax department and refused to condone the delay of 498 days.
"Even in this hi-tech "click of the mouse" age, some of the government officials are yet to come out of their love for the "snail pace" style of working. The worst is when such delays are aimed at simply completing formalities so that the government appeals get dismissed on the grounds of limitation, to the intended benefit of the other party. Whatever the reason, it is either the loss to the exchequer or the abrogation of the valuable rights of the assessee litigating against the state," the bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Girish Kathpalia observed.
Case Title: RAKESH KUMAR KALRA DEAF DIVAYANG v. STATE GOVT OF NCT DELHI
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 751
The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi Government to provide infrastructure and financial assistance for procuring essential electronic gadgets for conducting trial in cases where the accused person is differently-abled.
“No citizen in this country should feel that due to his physical or mental disability, justice was not done to him either due to lack of material infrastructure or moral, ethical, sensitive and understanding by the judicial system and Court,” Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed.
Even Minimal Penetration Is Sufficient To Establish Sexual Intercourse: Delhi High Court
Case Title: RAHUL v. STATE OF DELHI
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 752
Observing that the nature of the offence as to whether it constitutes rape or an attempt to commit rape needs to be considered carefully, the Delhi High Court has said that even minimal penetration is sufficient to establish sexual intercourse by a man.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma made the observation while upholding the conviction of a man in 2008 for attempting to rape a seven year old girl child in 2006 and confining her in a room. The court also upheld the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for five years and fine of Rs. 5,000 awarded to him.
Case Title: Saurabh Shukla v. Max Bupa Insurance & Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 753
Noting that a total of 29 insurance companies in India have introduced health insurance products for persons with disabilities, the Delhi High Court has observed that the step will offer such individuals a ray of hope and would be a first step in achieving equality for them.
“While the said products may not be the most ideal for persons with disabilities, this would merely be a first step in the process of achieving Equality for PwDs, which is the solemn intent of legislations including the Right of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016,” Justice Prathiba M Singh said.
NEET-UG: Delhi High Court Imposes Rs 20K Cost After Candidate Produces Fabricated OMR Sheet
Case Title: Selishia Mohandas v. UOI & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 754
The Delhi High Court recently imposed a cost of Rs. 20,000 against a NEET aspirant who claimed to have scored higher marks than what was reflecting on the record by producing a fabricated OMR Sheet.
Expressing shock over the stand of the aspirant, Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav said, “it is stated by counsel for the petitioner that earlier the name of the petitioner was appearing, however, on modification of the answer sheet, the same stands deleted. Such a stand is again unacceptable and shocking to the conscience of the court.”
Case Title: CHRISTIAN LOUBOUTIN SAS & ANR. v. M/S THE SHOE BOUTIQUE – SHUTIQ
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 755
Refusing to rely on ChatGPT responses in a suit filed by french luxury company Christian Louboutin over its unique “red sole” shoes design, the Delhi High Court has said that artificial intelligence cannot substitute either human intelligence or humane element in the adjudicatory process.
“Accuracy and reliability of AI generated data is still in the grey area. There is no doubt in the mind of the Court that, at the present stage of technological development, AI cannot substitute either the human intelligence or the humane element in the adjudicatory process. At best the tool could be utilised for a preliminary understanding or for preliminary research and nothing more,” Justice Prathiba M Singh said.
Case Title: M/S. Hanuman Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Additional Director General Directorate General Of GST
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 756
The Delhi High Court has held that the Directorate General of Goods and Service Tax Intelligence (DGGI) cannot be stopped from taking intelligence-based enforcement action when investigations by other authorities are going on.
The bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan has observed that if any of the authorities have found it necessary to investigate the petitioner based on certain information, the investigation cannot be stopped or interdicted on account of an investigation conducted with respect to any other entity.