Citations 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1263 to 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1299NOMINAL INDEXHavells India Limited v. Polycab India Limited 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1263 DIVYAM AGGARWAL v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1264 Jan Seva Welfare Society (Reg.) v. Union of India and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1265 PCIT Versus Oxygen Business Park Pvt. Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1266 Subhajit Dutta v....
Citations 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1263 to 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1299
NOMINAL INDEX
Havells India Limited v. Polycab India Limited 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1263
DIVYAM AGGARWAL v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1264
Jan Seva Welfare Society (Reg.) v. Union of India and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1265
PCIT Versus Oxygen Business Park Pvt. Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1266
Subhajit Dutta v. Principal District and Sessions Judge (South Delhi), Saket Courts Complex, and Ors 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1267
ATT SYS India Pvt Ltd Estex Tele Private Limited Consortium Versus The Commissioner Goods And Services Tax Delhi 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1268
Santosh Kumar Gupta Prop. Mahan Polymers Versus Commissioner, Delhi Goods And Services Tax Act & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1269
Neeraj Paper Marketing Ltd. Versus Special Commissioner, Department Of Trade And Taxes, Gnctd & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1270
AMAZON WHOLESALE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED Versus CUSTOMS AUTHORITY OF ADVANCE RULING, NEW DELHI & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1271
PPK NEWSCLICK STUDIO PVT LTD v. PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL DELHI AND ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1272
ovelesh Singhal Prop Shivani Overseas Versus Commissioner, Delhi Goods And Services Tax & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1273
Dr Suman Gupta v. Ravinder Pratap & Ors 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1274
SHANKAR @ GORI SHANKAR v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1275
Omar Abdullah v. Payal Abdullah 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1276
Pepsico India Holdings Private Limited Versus Assessment Unit Income Tax Department National Faceless Assessment Centre 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1277
PREMAKUMARI v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1278
IOCL Versus Commissioner Of Central Goods And Services Tax & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1279
BINEET SINGH BISHT v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1280
Bhagat Ram Om Prakash Agro Private Limited Versus The Commissioner Central Tax Gst Delhi- East 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1281
Indusind Bank Limited Versus Department Of Trade & Taxes, Government Of NCT Of Delhi 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1282
VIREN SINGH v. MADHUP VYAS & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1283
TUF Metallurgical Pvt. Ltd. Versus UOI 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1284
ABC v. XYZ 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1285
VISHAL YADAV v. THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1286
Court in its own motion v. Commissioner of Police, Delhi 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1287
GOOGLE LLC v. MAKEMYTRIP (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED AND ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1288
X v. Y 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1289
INSTITUTE OF DIRECTORS v. WORLDDEVCORP TECHNOLOGY AND BUSINESS SOLUTIONS PVT LTD & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1290
MS. YOGAMAYA M.G. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1291
Shashvat Nakrani v. Ashneer Grover 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1292
KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL & ANR. v. ARYAN KUMAR THROUGH FATHER RAVINDER KUMAR & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1293
DR BALWINDER KUMAR SHARMA v. STATE OF UT CHANDIGARH 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1294
PROCTER AND GAMBLE COMPANY v. CONTROLLER OF PATENTS AND DESIGNS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1295
HUGO BOSS TRADEMARK MANAGEMENT GMBH AND CO. KG. v. SANDEEP ARORA TRADING AS ARRAS THE BOSS & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1296
U.P. Jal Vidyut Nigam Ltd v. C.G. Power & Industrial Solution Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1297
NARENDRA TYAGI v. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR (CPIO) 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1298
Usha Bansal v. Genesis Finance Co. Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1299
Case Title: Havells India Limited v. Polycab India Limited
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1263
In a design infringement suit by Havells, the Delhi High Court has observed that when examining the aspect of design piracy from the point of view of visual appeal, it is the overall impression of the design of the defendant's product, vis-à-vis the suit design, that matters.
“…it is the overall shape and configuration which matters. The Court is not supposed to fragment the shape or configuration of the suit design into minor individual elements and start measuring lengths and breadths in order to arrive at a finding regarding imitation/similarity.”
Title: DIVYAM AGGARWAL v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1264
The Delhi High Court has expunged the remarks made by a single judge against a lawyer while dismissing his PIL seeking prohibition on the display of anti-tobacco advertisements containing “graphic or gross images” during films in cinemas, TV or OTT platforms.
A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Mini Pushkarna last week accepted the unconditional apology tendered by the lawyer who said that his endeavour was never to promote or support consumption of tobacco in any manner and that he is himself against use of tobacco in any form.
Ensure Public Toilets Are Clean, Hygienic And In Order: Delhi High Court To Authorities
Title: Jan Seva Welfare Society (Reg.) v. Union of India and Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1265
The Delhi High Court has directed the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) and Delhi Development Authority (DDA) to ensure that the public urinals and toilets in the national capital are clean, hygienic and in order.
A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Mini Pushkarna was hearing a public interest litigation filed by Jan Sewa Welfare Society to ensure availability of hygienic public urinals with clean water and electricity supply in the city.
No Incriminating Material Was Found During Search: Delhi High Court Quashes S. 153A Proceedings
Case Title: PCIT Versus Oxygen Business Park Pvt. Ltd
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1266
The Delhi High Court has held that the assessment for the assessment year 2011–12 was finalized on January 20, 2012, and no notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act was issued. As such, no assessment was pending on the date of the search action, i.e., October 29, 2013.
The bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Girish Kathpalia has observed that during the search action against the respondent or assessee, no incriminating material was found, and the material in the form of a statement now sought to be relied upon by the appellant or department was recorded subsequent to the search action.
Case Title: Subhajit Dutta v. Principal District and Sessions Judge (South Delhi), Saket Courts Complex, and Ors
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1267
While dealing with an appeal impleading District Court Judges, the Delhi High Court recently observed that the appellant was not entitled to any special privileges based on his claim of being a “Special Constitutional Functionary with the Union of India”, and instead, appeared to be in need of care and protection.
Case Title: ATT SYS India Pvt Ltd Estex Tele Private Limited Consortium Versus The Commissioner Goods And Services Tax Delhi
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1268
The Delhi High Court has directed the restoration of GST registration as no opportunity for a hearing was accorded to the petitioner or assessee.
The bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan has observed that the show cause notice (SCN) does not mention any time or date for a personal hearing. Thus, the petitioner was not afforded a hearing to contest the SCN. The order cancelling the petitioner's registration is void as it has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice.
Case Title: Santosh Kumar Gupta Prop. Mahan Polymers Versus Commissioner, Delhi Goods And Services Tax Act & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1269
The Delhi High Court has directed the department to reverse the input tax credit (ITC) amounting to Rs. 22,14,226 in the petitioner's electronic credit ledger (ECL).
“We do not find it difficult to accept that the petitioner may have found the circumstances intimidating and had, accordingly, agreed to reverse the ITC. We are unable to accept that the reversal of ITC was made voluntarily without any suggestion or encouragement by the officers,” the bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan has observed.
Assessee Coerced To Deposit GST During Search: Delhi High Court Orders Refund
Case Title: Neeraj Paper Marketing Ltd. Versus Special Commissioner, Department Of Trade And Taxes, Gnctd & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1270
The Delhi High Court has directed the department to refund the amount deposited by the petitioner by making a payment of Rs. 23,70,000 in cash along with interest at a rate of 6% per annum.
The bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan has observed that payments aggregating to Rs. 28,20,000 were made at 11:49 PM and at 12:38 PM during the search operations. The payments made by it were not voluntary but under compelling circumstances.
Case Title: AMAZON WHOLESALE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED Versus CUSTOMS AUTHORITY OF ADVANCE RULING, NEW DELHI & ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1271
The Delhi High Court has held that Echo Show 5, Echo Dot 4th Generation, and Echo Dot 4th Generation with Clock are eligible to claim exemptions in accordance with SI. No. 20 of the Notification dated June 30, 2017.
The bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Dharmesh Sharma has observed that merely because these devices could, if so chosen by the user, also be used as mere speakers, the same would not justify recognizing their primordial attribute to be that of a speaker alone.
Title: PPK NEWSCLICK STUDIO PVT LTD v. PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL DELHI AND ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1272
The Delhi High Court has recently dismissed a plea moved by news portal Newsclick seeking stay of demand, as per the assessment order of income tax department passed last year, during the pendency of its appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).
The division bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Mini Pushkarna upheld two orders passed by the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax which dismissed the news portal's application for stay of demand during the pendency of the appeal.
GST Officers Should Not Pressurise Taxpayers To Pay Tax Not Following Procedure: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Lovelesh Singhal Prop Shivani Overseas Versus Commissioner, Delhi Goods And Services Tax & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1273
The Delhi High Court has held that it is impermissible for the officers to pressurize the taxpayers to pay tax without following the requisite procedure, notwithstanding that it may be apparent that such tax is due and payable.
Case Title: Dr Suman Gupta v. Ravinder Pratap & Ors
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1274
The Delhi High Court has quashed a defamation case filed against Dr Suman Gupta, former Professor and Dean, University School of Law and Legal Studies (USLLS), Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University (GGSIPU), noting that the case fell under exception 8 (accusation preferred in good faith to authorized person) to Section 499 IPC.
Trial Has To Begin De Novo When Case Is Committed By Magistrate To Sessions Court: Delhi High Court
Title: SHANKAR @ GORI SHANKAR v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1275
The Delhi High Court has ruled that when a case is committed by the Magistrate to the Court of Session, the trial would have to begin de novo.
Justice Amit Bansal observed that the Sessions Court would first frame charges and then proceed with the examination of the witnesses.
Delhi High Court Refuses To Grant Divorce To Omar Abdullah From Estranged Wife Payal Abdullah
Title: Omar Abdullah v. Payal Abdullah
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1276
The Delhi High Court has dismissed the plea moved by former Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister Omar Abdullah seeking divorce from his estranged wife Payal Abdullah.
A division bench of Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Vikas Mahajan rejected the petition moved by Omar Abdullah challenging a family court order passed on August 30, 2016, dismissing his plea for divorce.
Case Title: Pepsico India Holdings Private Limited Versus Assessment Unit Income Tax Department National Faceless Assessment Centre
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1277
The Delhi High Court has set aside the final assessment order and the consequent notices and computations that were passed without waiting for the directions issued by the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) as per the mandate of Section 144C of the Income Tax Act.
Title: PREMAKUMARI v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1278
The Delhi High Court has permitted mother of a Malayali nurse Nimisha Priya, an Indian who is on death row in Yemen, to travel there along with another individual working there, at her own personal risk without any liability of the Union Government or concerned State Government.
Delhi High Court Directs GST Dept. To Pay GST ITC To IOCL
Case Title: IOCL Versus Commissioner Of Central Goods And Services Tax & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1279
The Delhi High Court has allowed the refund of accumulated Input Tax Credit (ITC) due to the inverted duty structure to Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL).
The bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan has observed that the rate of tax chargeable on inputs other than LPG, which are higher than the rate of GST chargeable on bottled LPG. The ITC has accumulated on account of the rate of tax on such inputs being higher than the output supply – bottled LPG.
Title: BINEET SINGH BISHT v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1280
The Delhi High Court has observed that there is no room for an individual who endeavours to seek employment in disciplined forces by concealing material fact about his or her criminal antecedents.
A division bench of Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Manoj Jain observed that there has to be strict obedience towards disclosure about criminal antecedents by anyone seeking employment in disciplined forces.
Roving Inquiry As Per Order Of Special Judge (PC Act) By GST Dept. Delhi High Court Quashes Order
Case Title: Bhagat Ram Om Prakash Agro Private Limited Versus The Commissioner Central Tax Gst Delhi- East
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1281
The Delhi High Court has quashed the special judge's directions for conducting a roving inquiry by the GST department in the absence of any statutory provisions.
The bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan has observed that apart from the directions issued in terms of the order dated April 5, 2023, there were no reasons for the respondent to initiate the search against the petitioners under Section 67(1) of the CGST Act.
VAT Applicable On Sale Of Repossessed Vehicles: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Indusind Bank Limited Versus Department Of Trade & Taxes, Government Of NCT Of Delhi
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1282
The Delhi High Court has held that the sale of repossessed vehicles is subject to the charge of value-added tax (VAT).
The bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan has observed that notices have been issued to the petitioner demanding VAT on the sale of repossessed vehicles and not on the transaction of financing the vehicles at the initial purchase.
Title: VIREN SINGH v. MADHUP VYAS & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1283
The Delhi High Court has observed that it is not oblivious of the ground situation regarding the rampant unauthorized construction allowed by officials of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) in the city “under their very noses” and the “ill motivated selective application of laws”, thereby harassing and tormenting innocent people.
Delhi High Court Quashes Income Tax Notice Issued Prior To Date Of Approval Of Resolution Plan
Case Title: TUF Metallurgical Pvt. Ltd. Versus UOI
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1284
The Delhi High Court has quashed the income tax notices and orders issued prior to the date of approval of the resolution plan.
The bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Girish Kathpalia has observed the notices and orders pertaining to the income tax claims of the respondents or department pertaining to the period much prior to the date of approval of the resolution plan.
Title: ABC v. XYZ
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1285
The Delhi High Court has recently said that there is an overlapping of jurisdiction to grant interim maintenance under various enactments which leads to conflicting judgments or orders at different stages between the parties.
“Such conflicting Orders, in the similar facts and without any change in circumstances, under overlapping jurisdiction of different Acts, creates a sense of judicial impropriety and forum shopping, which may not be conducive to the majesty of the Courts,” a division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna observed.
Title: VISHAL YADAV v. THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI & ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1286
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a plea seeking postponement of the Delhi Judicial Services Preliminary Examination, 2023, which is scheduled to be held on December 17.
Refusing to postpone the examination date, a division bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Mini Pushkarna dismissed a public interest litigation moved by one Vishal Yadav.
Delhi High Court Transfers Probe Into Attack On Advocates In 2018 To CBI
Title: Court in its own motion v. Commissioner of Police, Delhi
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1287
The Delhi High Court has transferred the probe into the attack on three advocates and members of the Delhi High Court Bar Association in 2018 from Delhi Police to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Mini Pushkarna ordered the probe agency to take action in the matter in accordance with law and directed that the entire investigation report be transferred to it within 10 days.
Title: GOOGLE LLC v. MAKEMYTRIP (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED AND ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1288
The Delhi High Court has set aside a single judge's order which restrained Google and online travel agency Booking.com from using 'MakeMyTrip' mark, with or without spaces, as a keyword on the Google Ads Program.
A division bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan observed that Booking.com is a well-known and popular platform offering travel services and that prima facie, it cannot accept that an internet user is likely to be misled into believing that the services offered by it are those of Make My Trip.
Title: X v. Y
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1289
The Delhi High Court has ordered that the children room in all District Courts in the national capital must be kept open on every Sundays and second Saturdays between 10 AM to 5 PM, so that visitation with children can also be directed on those days.
A division bench of Justice V Kameswar Rao and Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta said that it is a matter of record that District Courts in Delhi are closed on Sundays and Second Saturday and no order for visitation can be passed on those days.
Title: INSTITUTE OF DIRECTORS v. WORLDDEVCORP TECHNOLOGY AND BUSINESS SOLUTIONS PVT LTD & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1290
The Delhi High Court has recently ruled that words of common English usage cannot be registered as a trademark and no monopoly can be claimed by the registrant of such a mark.
Justice C Hari Shankar said that words of ordinary English usage cannot be monopolised or else, the entire language would be appropriated by a few, which cannot be permitted.
Title: MS. YOGAMAYA M.G. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1291
The Delhi High Court has refused to entertain a petition seeking direction on the Union Government and the Election Commission of India to urgently implement the Women's Reservation Bill, 2023, to ensure the reservation of 33% seats for women in the upcoming Lok Sabha Elections 2024.
Title: Shashvat Nakrani v. Ashneer Grover
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1292
The Delhi High Court has refused to restrain BharatPe's former Managing Director Ashneer Grover from creating any third party rights in the “unpaid shares” which he bought from fintech company's co-founder Shashvat Nakrani.
Title: KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL & ANR. v. ARYAN KUMAR THROUGH FATHER RAVINDER KUMAR & ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1293
The Delhi High Court has said that the CBSE Examination Bye-Laws are in the nature of Central Bye-Laws and are not akin to Local State Acts or Regulations.
A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Mini Pushkarna observed that when there is contradiction and conflict in the CBSE Examination Bye-Laws and KVS Education Code, the former would prevail.
Title: DR BALWINDER KUMAR SHARMA v. STATE OF UT CHANDIGARH
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1294
The Delhi High Court has upheld the charges framed against former Registrar (Recruitment) of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, Dr. Balwinder Kumar Sharma, in connection with the paper leak of Haryana Civil Services (Judicial Branch) Preliminary Examination, 2017.
Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma said that as per the record, Sharma was in possession of the question paper immediately before the alleged leak.
Title: PROCTER AND GAMBLE COMPANY v. CONTROLLER OF PATENTS AND DESIGNS
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1295
The Delhi High Court has observed that the Patent Office is expected to pass final orders after concluding oral hearings within a reasonable period, which cannot be beyond three to six months, depending on the complexity of the case.
Justice Prathiba M Singh said that there are strict timelines prescribed in the Patents Act, 1970, and its Rules right from the filing of the request of examination, preparation of examination report by the examiner of patent, consideration of the report by the Controller, issuance of the statement of objections, reply to the statement of objections and the time for putting the application for grant of patent.
Title: HUGO BOSS TRADEMARK MANAGEMENT GMBH AND CO. KG. v. SANDEEP ARORA TRADING AS ARRAS THE BOSS & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1296
The Delhi High Court has cancelled the copyright registration of 'Arras The Boss', obtained by an individual selling perfumes, in a suit filed by German perfumery brand 'Hugo Boss'.
Justice Prathiba M Singh said that 'Arras The Boss' is an imitative mark and artistic work and not an original artistic work.
Case Title: U.P. Jal Vidyut Nigam Ltd v. C.G. Power & Industrial Solution Ltd
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1297
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the application of Section 14 of the Limitation Act is not available to a petitioner who, through lack of diligence, allowed its Section 34 petition under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act to be dismissed twice for non-prosecution.
Title: NARENDRA TYAGI v. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR (CPIO)
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1298
The Delhi High Court has observed that the correctness of information provided under the Right to Information Act, 2005, or any other dispute or controversy, cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under the enactment.
Case Title: Usha Bansal v. Genesis Finance Co. Ltd
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1299
The High Court of Delhi has held that a bare plea of fraud, coercion or duress cannot justify challenge to the Settlement Agreement under Section 34 of the A&C Act.
The bench of Justice Sachin Datta has held that a bare plea of fraud, coercion or duress cannot justify challenge to the Settlement Agreement under Section 34 of the A&C Act.