Citations 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1210 to 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1262NOMINAL INDEXSri Ganesh Engineering Works v. Northern Railways 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1210 Anil Kumar Gupta v. MCD 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1211 KIRAN JUNEJA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1212 NUZIVEEDU SEEDS PVT. LTD. v. THE PROTECTION OF PLANT VARIETY AND FARMERS RIGHTS AUTHORITY AND ORS and other connected matters...
Citations 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1210 to 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1262
NOMINAL INDEX
Sri Ganesh Engineering Works v. Northern Railways 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1210
Anil Kumar Gupta v. MCD 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1211
KIRAN JUNEJA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1212
NUZIVEEDU SEEDS PVT. LTD. v. THE PROTECTION OF PLANT VARIETY AND FARMERS RIGHTS AUTHORITY AND ORS and other connected matters 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1213
CAMPAIGN FOR PEOPLE PARTICIPATION IN DEVELOPMENT PLANNING v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1214
S.K. Engineering & Construction Company India 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1215
N v. The Union of India & Anr 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1216
S.K. Engineering & Construction Company India 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1217
Citius Real Estate (P) Ltd. v. Union of India and Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1218
X v. Y 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1219
ANISH PRAMOD PATEL v. KIRAN JYOT MAINI 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1220
Rakesh @ Dalu v. State (NCT of Delhi) 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1221
PCIT Versus M/S Inductis India Pvt. Ltd. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1222
Iqbal Singh v. Naresh Kumar 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1223
SAIL v Uniper Global Commodities 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1224
Ravi Gupta v. State(Govt of NCT of Delhi) & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1225
CASTROL LIMITED & ANR. v. VOLTRANIC INDIA LUBRICANTS & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1226
SMT. VIMMI CHAWLA v. DEEPAK SETHI 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1227
SHARIQ v. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1228
Geeta v. Delhi Building and Other Construction Workers Board 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1229
MASTER SINGHAM v. DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1230
Payal Malhotra v. Sulekh Chand 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1231
Arpit Bhargava and Anr. v. Vijay Kumar Dev & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1232
KOHLI SPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED v. ASHI SPORTS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1233
NARENDER JAIN & ANR v. ANIS AHMED RUSHDIE (DECEASED) THR LRS & ORS and Other Connected Matters 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1234
Bhargava Phytolab Private Limited v. LDD Bioscience Private Limited 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1235
New Delhi NatureSociety v. Director Horticulture DDA & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1236
THE LEGAL ATTORNEYS & BARRISTERS LAW FIRM (REPRESENTED THROUGH ITS ASSOCIATE ADVOCATE) v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1237
CABLE NEWS NETWORK INC v. CITY NEWS NETWORK & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1238
SMT. RUBINA & ORS. v. THE STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1239
M/s Bennett Coleman & Co Ltd & Ors v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1240
VICKY v. STATE OF N.C.T. OF DELHI 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1241
Divender v. LG of Delhi 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1242
Vikas Malhotra v. The State of NCT of Delhi & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1243
CIT Versus Augustus Capital Pte. Ltd. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1244
FAIZY KHAN v. THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1245
KESHAV PRAKASH GUPTA v. STATE NCT OF DELHI 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1246
MANU GUPTA v. SUJATA SHARMA & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1247
VINEET JHAVAR v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1248
Defsys Solutions Private Limited v. Union of India, LPA 672/2023 (and connected matter) 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1249
J.S.R. Constructions v. NHAI 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1250
Sanjiv Kumar v. The State Govt of NCT of Delhi 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1251
AWADHESH YADAV v. STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1252
Kanta v. Gurvinder Kapoor & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1253
BURGER KING COMPANY LLC v. VIRENDRA KUMAR GUPTA & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1254
Shourya Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Versus ITO 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1255
LAMBODER JHA v. GOVT NCT OF DELHI & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1256
CIT Versus Cairnhill Cipef Ltd. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1257
SHARAD VASHISHT GENERAL SECRETARY W ONE DESU ROAD MEHRAULI v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH ITS CHIEF SECRETARY & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1258
COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. BRIJESH SHUKLA 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1259
House of Diagnostics LLP & Ors. v. House of Pathology Labs Private Limited 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1260
Umaxe Projects Pvt Ltd v. AIR Force Naval Housing Board 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1261
Viceroy Engineering v. Smiths Detection Veecon Systems Pvt Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1262
Case Title: Sri Ganesh Engineering Works v. Northern Railways, ARB.P 609/2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1210
The Delhi High Court has held that an arbitration clause that confers on a party the right to nominate 2/3rd of arbitral tribunal violates the principles of 'counter-balancing' as sought to be achieved by the Supreme Court in the landmark judgment in Perkins.
The bench of Justice Jyoti Singh held that a party cannot have the right to nominate the majority of the arbitral tribunal and such an exercises casts doubts on the neutrality and impartiality of the arbitral tribunal.
Case Title: Anil Kumar Gupta v. MCD, FAO(OS) (COMM) 315 of 2019.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1211
The Delhi High Court of Delhi has held that once a petition under Section 34 of the A&C Act has been disposed of by a final order, the Court cannot admit an application seeking to modify such an order.
The bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Ravinder Dudeja set aside an order of the Court wherein the Court had, upon the application of the respondent, modified its earlier order passed under Section 34 of the A&C Act.
Title: KIRAN JUNEJA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1212
The Delhi High Court has observed that the principles of natural justice are not “mantras” but foundational precepts concerned with fairness of procedure and the right of a person to respond to the allegations made.
“Ultimately, whether the asserted violation of some facet of natural justice has tainted the procedure adopted by the respondent is an issue of fact and which would ultimately guide courts to consider whether interference is warranted,” a division bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Shailender Kaur said.
Title: NUZIVEEDU SEEDS PVT. LTD. v. THE PROTECTION OF PLANT VARIETY AND FARMERS RIGHTS AUTHORITY AND ORS and other connected matters
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1213
The Delhi High Court has observed that the farmers are to be given full opportunity to oppose any monopoly which may be created by registering of plant varieties under the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers' Rights Act, 2001, as new plant varieties.
Justice C Hari Shankar said that farmers' rights are a pre-eminent consideration that has to guide the approach of the court while administering the provisions of the enactment.
Case Title: CAMPAIGN FOR PEOPLE PARTICIPATION IN DEVELOPMENT PLANNING v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1214
The Delhi High Court has observed that the declaration of rural areas as urban areas is done in furtherance of the pre-eminent purpose of planned development of the national capital.
A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Mini Pushkarna dismissed a public interest litigation challenging the constitutional validity of a notification issued on May 16, 2017 by Delhi Government's Department of Urban Development, declaring that certain villages which were part of rural areas shall be deemed as urban areas.
Case Title: S.K. Engineering & Construction Company India, ARB. P. 737 of 202
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1215
The High Court of Delhi has held that the Court exercising powers under Section 11 of the A&C Act can sever an illegal/offending portion of the arbitration clause.
The bench of Justice Sachin Datta held that an arbitration clause does not become illegal by mere illegality of the appointment procedure provided therein, therefore, the Court u/s 11 can sever the illegal portion of the award and refer the dispute to arbitration.
Case Title: N v. The Union of India & Anr
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1216
The Delhi High Court has permitted a 21-year-old unmarried woman to terminate an ongoing unwanted pregnancy, despite expiry of the period prescribed under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act (“MTP Act”).
Entire Arbitration Not Invalid By Illegality Of Appointment Procedure: Delhi High Court Reiterates
Case Title: S.K. Engineering & Construction Company India, ARB. P. 737 of 2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1217
The High Court of Delhi has held that an arbitration clause does not become illegal by mere illegality of the appointment procedure provided therein.
The bench of Justice Sachin Datta held that the procedure for appointment of an arbitrator is clearly distinct and separable from the agreement to refer disputes to arbitration, even if these are contained in the same arbitration clause.
Case Title: Citius Real Estate (P) Ltd. v. Union of India and Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1218
Taking note of a lacuna in the express provisions of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (“Act”), the Delhi High Court has held that Section 54(c) of the Act must be interpreted as being inapplicable to cases where an applicant seeks refund of stamp duty because he was not aware that the stamp paper would be of no “immediate use” within 6 months of its purchase.
Title: X v. Y
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1219
The Delhi High Court has said that merely because the wife is earning does not automatically operate as an absolute bar for awarding maintenance by the husband.
A division bench of Justice V Kameswar Rao and Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta also observed that the obligation of the husband to provide maintenance is on a higher pedestal than the wife, since the provision for grant of maintenance or interim maintenance for women and children in various statutes is keeping in perspective the underlying principle under Article 15(3) of the Constitution of India.
Title: ANISH PRAMOD PATEL v. KIRAN JYOT MAINI
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1220
The Delhi High Court has ruled that a person cannot be summoned under Section 31 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, for non-compliance of an order for payment of maintenance.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed that the focus of the enactment is on providing immediate and effective relief to victims of domestic violence by way of maintenance or interim maintenance orders, and that the idea is ot to immediately initiate criminal proceedings against the aggressor for non-payment of maintenance and to send such person to prison.
Case Title: Rakesh @ Dalu v. State (NCT of Delhi)
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1221
Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar of the Delhi High Court has granted furlough to a prisoner, while observing that personal freedom is a priceless fundamental right, which should only be restricted when necessary in light of unique facts and circumstances of the case.
Case Title: PCIT Versus M/S Inductis India Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1222
The Delhi High Court has held that the assessee was a debt-free company and there was no need to impute notional interest on outstanding receivables.
Case Title: Iqbal Singh v. Naresh Kumar, OMP(MISC.) 15 of 2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1223
The High Court of Delhi has extended the time period for the completion of arbitral proceedings, despite observing that there was inordinate delay in the completion of arbitral proceedings, on the ground that the proceedings, though protracted, has reached advance stage.
Case Title: SAIL v Uniper Global Commodities, OMP(E)(COMM.) 22 of 2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1224
The High Court of Delhi has held that the Court exercising powers under Section 27 of the A&C Act cannot form an opinion on the relevancy or the admissibility of the evidence for which the assistance of the Court is sought.
Case Title: Ravi Gupta v. State(Govt of NCT of Delhi) & Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1225
The Delhi High Court recently observed that it is crucial to distinguish between legitimate or reasonable expectations and illegitimate or unreasonable demands made by citizens from the State.
“…undoubtedly the citizens' expectation of protection of their life and liberty by the State is a fundamental aspect of governance in any society. Citizens look to their government to provide safety, security, and a legal framework that safeguards their rights and well-being. However, it's crucial to distinguish between legitimate and reasonable expectations and illegitimate or unreasonable demands when it comes to the role of the State,” Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma opined.
Case Title: CASTROL LIMITED & ANR. v. VOLTRANIC INDIA LUBRICANTS & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1226
The Delhi High Court has awarded costs of Rs. 1 lakh in favor of Castrol India Limited in a trademark infringement suit filed by it against manufacturing of identical products by the defendant-entity using its registered trademarks.
Title: SMT. VIMMI CHAWLA v. DEEPAK SETHI
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1227
The Delhi High Court has observed that the seats in MBBS course at All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) are not for sale and securing them through unlawful means is immoral and opposed to public policy.
Justice Jasmeet Singh upheld a trial court order dismissing the suit filed by a mother seeking recovery of Rs. 30 lakhs given to an individual to secure admission of her daughter for MBBS course at AIIMS.
Case Title: SHARIQ v. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1228
The Delhi High Court recently imposed costs of Rs. 10,000 on a litigant for filing a petition alleging unauthorized construction with incorrect description of the property.
Justice Prateek Jalan observed that due care must be taken while filing a writ petition to ensure that the details incorporated in it are correct.
Case Title: Geeta v. Delhi Building and Other Construction Workers Board
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1229
The Delhi High Court has allowed a plea for death benefits and funeral claims filed by a building worker's widow, observing that Delhi Building and Other Construction Workers Act, 1996 (“Act”) is a beneficial legislation aimed at benefit of construction workers who do not have any form of security.
Title: MASTER SINGHAM v. DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION & ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1230
The Delhi High Court has ordered that the existing income threshold of Rs. 1 lakh per annum, for admissions under Economically Weaker Section (EWS) category in schools in the city, be increased to Rs. 5 lakhs, till an amendment is made by Delhi Government in the 2011 reservation scheme.
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav directed the Delhi Government to take a decision as expeditiously as possible to increase the existing threshold income of Rs. 1 lakh per annum to a “commensurate amount” which corresponds to the living standards of the intended beneficiaries of the scheme in the city.
Case Title: Payal Malhotra v. Sulekh Chand
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1231
The Delhi High Court recently observed that dishonor of a cheque given as security attracts Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (“NI Act”) and cases where cheques are dishonored for reasons “payment stopped” or “account closed” also fall within the ambit of the provision.
Title: Arpit Bhargava and Anr. v. Vijay Kumar Dev & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1232
The Delhi High Court has directed the city authorities to conduct a structural audit of buildings of all hospitals, schools and colleges in the national capital to check their stability during earthquakes.
Title: KOHLI SPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED v. ASHI SPORTS
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1233
The Delhi High Court has appointed former judge of the Supreme Court of India, Justice Nageswara Rao, as a mediator in a suit filed by manufacturer of cricket helmets alleging infringement of its shape mark by a Meerut based entity selling identical products.
Title: NARENDER JAIN & ANR v. ANIS AHMED RUSHDIE (DECEASED) THR LRS & ORS and Other Connected Matters
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1234
The Delhi High Court has ordered fresh valuation of the market price of an ancestral property of Indian-born British-American writer Salman Rushdie in city's Civil Lines area which was valued by a single judge at Rs. 130 Crores in 2019.
A division bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan set aside the 2019 order and remanded the matter back to the single judge to determine the value of the property afresh, in terms of the directions issued by the Supreme Court in 2012.
Case Title: Bhargava Phytolab Private Limited v. LDD Bioscience Private Limited
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1235
In a trademark infringement suit filed by Bhargava Phytolab to protect its mark “TUMORIN” against defendant's use of a deceptively similar mark “TUMOTIN”, the Delhi High Court recently granted relief of interim injunction, holding that plaintiff was able to make out a prima facie case of infringement.
Delhi High Court Orders Status Quo On Translocation Of Deer From Deer Park At Hauz Khas
Title: New Delhi NatureSociety v. Director Horticulture DDA & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1236
The Delhi High Court has ordered status quo on the translocation of deer from city's Deer Park at Hauz Khas, till further orders.
A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Mini Pushkarna passed the order in a PIL moved by New Delhi Nature Society against translocation of about 600 animals, including deer, from the park to city's Asola Bhati Wildlife Sanctuary, without compliance of legal provisions and guidelines.
Title: THE LEGAL ATTORNEYS & BARRISTERS LAW FIRM (REPRESENTED THROUGH ITS ASSOCIATE ADVOCATE) v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1237
The Delhi High Court has directed the Union Government to decided expeditiously and preferably within three months a representation seeking to cancel and ban the license for keeping dogs like Pitbull, American Bulldog, Rottweiler etc. and their cross breeds which are dangerous to public at large.
Title: CABLE NEWS NETWORK INC v. CITY NEWS NETWORK & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1238
The Delhi High Court has restrained a Lucknow based news website from using the marks “CNN City News Network” or “CNN” in a trademark infringement suit filed by CNN news channel.
Title: SMT. RUBINA & ORS. v. THE STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1239
The Delhi High Court has observed that criminal proceedings in cases involving children cannot be quashed on the basis of settlement between parties as it could contribute to the perpetuation of a culture where rights and dignity of minors are subjugated to negotiation and compromise.
Case Title: M/s Bennett Coleman & Co Ltd & Ors v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1240
While dealing with a plea filed by M/s Bennett Coleman, Justice Amit Sharma of the Delhi High Court recently observed that the words “other persons” under Section 401(2) CrPC cannot be construed as wide enough to include persons not affected by the order challenged in the revision petition.
Title: VICKY v. STATE OF N.C.T. OF DELHI
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1241
The Delhi High Court has observed that the judges may often stay aloof from the public, but they do not remain aloof from the societal expectations that offenders of criminal offences should be punished for their wrong doings.
“By maintaining a vigilant approach, the Courts ensure that the pursuit of truth remains paramount, undeterred by outside influences or attempts to compromise the integrity of the legal process,” Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed.
Title: Divender v. LG of Delhi
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1242
The Delhi High Court has restrained the city forest department from conducting a “Walkathon” event proposed to be held inside the city's Asola Bhati Wildlife Sanctuary, till further orders.
Case Title: Vikas Malhotra v. The State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1243
While dealing with an application seeking condonation of delay, the Delhi High Court has held that objections in a contested testamentary petition should not be rejected on technical grounds, unless there has been an inordinate delay.
Case Title: CIT Versus Augustus Capital Pte. Ltd.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1244
The Delhi High Court has held that Explanations 6 and 7 appended to section 9(1)(i) Of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to be given retrospective effect.
Title: FAIZY KHAN v. THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI)
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1245
The Delhi High Court has recently cautioned its Registry to “keep in mind” the judgments and its practice directions for ensuring that anonymity and confidentiality of the prosecutrix or victim of sexual offences is maintained in judicial filings.
Title: KESHAV PRAKASH GUPTA v. STATE NCT OF DELHI
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1246
The Delhi High Court has observed that filing of chargesheet in a criminal case is not the sole criteria to be taken into consideration while considering the grant of bail to an accused as it has to be coupled with facts and circumstance involved.
Title: MANU GUPTA v. SUJATA SHARMA & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1247
The Delhi High Court has ruled that neither the legislature nor the traditional Hindu Law, in any way, limits the right of a woman to be a Karta of an Hindu Undivided Family (HUF).
A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna observed that “societal perceptions” cannot be a reason to deny the rights expressly conferred by the Legislature.
Titled VINEET JHAVAR v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1248
The Delhi High Court has observed that crime-enables crimes erode trust of the people in online financial transactions platforms which is against the aspirations of an advanced “Digital Bharat.”
Case Title: Defsys Solutions Private Limited v. Union of India, LPA 672/2023 (and connected matter)
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1249
In connection with Union of India's suspension of business dealings with Defsys Solutions Private Limited (“Defsys”), the Delhi High Court on Wednesday observed that no suspension can continue indefinitely without show cause notice, especially because even at the time of review, principles of fairness/natural justice are not to be adhered to.
Case Title: J.S.R. Constructions v. NHAI, ARB.P. 753 of 2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1250
The High Court of Delhi has held that a party cannot unilaterally appoint the presiding arbitrator upon the failure of the nominee arbitrators to reach a consensus.
Case Title: Sanjiv Kumar v. The State Govt of NCT of Delhi
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1251
While dealing with the issue of interception of calls, Justice Amit Bansal of the Delhi High Court recently held that in view of the Supreme Court's decision in Ritesh Sinha v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr., courts can authorize an investigating agency to obtain voice samples of accused. However, there must be compliance with provisions of the Telegraph Act, 1885.
Title: AWADHESH YADAV v. STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1252
The Delhi High Court has said that the provisions of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, must be implemented effectively, observing that investigations in narcotics cases are often half-hearted for various reasons.
Case Title: Kanta v. Gurvinder Kapoor & Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1253
The Delhi High Court recently allowed appeal of a truck driver's widow, observing that denial of her compensation claim on the ground that the driver added peril himself by getting down his vehicle to help another, was “unconscionable” and “patently erroneous”, as well as opposed to purposes of the Employees' Compensation (EC) Act.
Delhi High Court Declares 'Burger King' As A Well-Known Trademark
Title: BURGER KING COMPANY LLC v. VIRENDRA KUMAR GUPTA & ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1254
The Delhi High Court has declared “Burger King” as a well known trademark, considering the long period during which the mark and its variations have been used for fast foods, especially burgers.
Reassessment Proceedings, Senior Officers Like ACIT, PCIT Expected To Apply Mind; Delhi High Court
Case Title: Shourya Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Versus ITO
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1255
The Delhi High Court has held that senior officers like ACIT and PCIT are expected to apply their minds to such requests and, only after that, approve the initiation of reassessment proceedings.
Title: LAMBODER JHA v. GOVT NCT OF DELHI & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1256
The Delhi High Court has called for a user-friendly ready-to-use handbook in every Police Station across the national capital for accessibility to aid investigations concerning cases of missing children.
Issuing various directions concerning cases related to missing children, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said that a standardized checklist must be formulated and maintained at all police stations, providing a comprehensive guide for investigating officers when handling such cases.
Case Title: CIT Versus Cairnhill Cipef Ltd.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1257
The Delhi High Court has held that a revisionary order under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act could not be passed against a non-existing seller entity by invoking Section 163 against the buyer.
Title: SHARAD VASHISHT GENERAL SECRETARY W ONE DESU ROAD MEHRAULI v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH ITS CHIEF SECRETARY & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1258
The Delhi High Court has asked the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) to explore the possibility of developing parking spaces in the vicinity of Mehrauli area to tackle the problem of traffic jam there.
Title: COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. BRIJESH SHUKLA
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1259
The Delhi High Court has discharged a litigant of criminal contempt proceedings initiated against him for calling the Delhi judiciary corrupt, levelling allegations against a judicial officer and using abusive language against him.
Case Title: House of Diagnostics LLP & Ors. v. House of Pathology Labs Private Limited
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1260
In response to a plea raised by plaintiffs/House of Diagnostics for exemption from advance service of the suit papers on the defendant, the Delhi High Court recently ruled that advance service of suit papers on a defendant, as mandated by Rule 22 of the IPD Rules, is must, unless plaintiff demonstrates that compliance with the requirement would cause irreparable prejudice or irreversibly alter the status quo.
Case Title: Umaxe Projects Pvt Ltd v. AIR Force Naval Housing Board, OMP(COMM) 469/2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1261
The High Court of Delhi has held that mere participation of a party in the arbitration proceeding cannot be deemed to be a waiver under Section 12(5) of the A&C Act.
Case Title: Viceroy Engineering v. Smiths Detection Veecon Systems Pvt Ltd, OMP(COMM) 302 of 2019
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1262
The High Court of Delhi has held that technical deficiencies, including pagination and affidavit attestation, do not invalidate petitions under Section 34 of the A&C Act.