Citations 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 172 to 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 212NOMINAL INDEX Surya Alloy Industries Ltd Vs Union Of India And Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 172 M/S Axalta Coating Systems India Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Madhuban Motors Pvt. Ltd. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 173 SWATI SINGH v. JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 174 PHILLIPS 66 COMPANY v. RAAJ UNOCAL LUBRICANTS LIMITED 2024 LiveLaw...
Citations 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 172 to 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 212
NOMINAL INDEX
Surya Alloy Industries Ltd Vs Union Of India And Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 172
M/S Axalta Coating Systems India Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Madhuban Motors Pvt. Ltd. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 173
SWATI SINGH v. JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 174
PHILLIPS 66 COMPANY v. RAAJ UNOCAL LUBRICANTS LIMITED 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 175
COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 176
PRAVEEN@NAVEEN@VICKY v. STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 177
DEBARATI NANDEE v. MS. TRIPTI GURHA & ANR and other connected matters 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 178
DR. AMIT KUMAR v. BHARATI COLLEGE 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 179
M/S S.K Agencies vs M/S DFM Foods 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 180
The Commissioner Of Income Tax Versus Mitsubishi Corporation India P. Ltd 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 181
VALLABHBHAI PATEL CHEST INSTITUTE v. NISHIKESH TYAGI & ANOTHER 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 182
JAMIA ARABIA NIZAMIA WELFARE EDUCATION SOCIETY v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY THROUGH ITS VICE CHAIRMAN & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 183
SHIBU SOREN v. LOKPAL OF INDIA & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 184
RAGHAV AWASTHI v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 185
TTK PRESTIGE LIMITED v. BAGHLA SANITARYWARE PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 186
VIJAY DAHIYA v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 187
VINOD NAGAR v. NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 188
Aroh Foundation Versus Commissioner Of Income Tax Exemption & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 189
PO v. VP 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 190
GLAXO GROUP LIMITED v. ANGLO-FRENCH DRUGS AND INDUSTRIES LTD. & ANR 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 191
CASTROL LIMITED v. RAJESH KUMAR TUTEJA, TRADING AS KRISHNA INTERNATIONAL AND ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 192
NOKIA TECHNOLOGIES OY v. GUANGDONG OPPO MOBILE TELECOMMUNICATIONS CORP LTD & ORS. and other connected matters 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 193
ASLAM & ORS. v. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 194
MAHESHWARI DEVI v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 195
X v. Y 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 196
Shashvat Nakrani v. Ashneer Grover 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 197
RV v. NAVBHARAT TIMES & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 198
Varun Sood Versus ACIT 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 199
Swashbuckler Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. vs Avdesh Mittal & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 200
M/s NHPC Ltd Vs M/s Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 201
THE MANAGING COMMITTEE OF DELHI WAQF BOARD v. THE GOVERNMENT OF NCT (GNCT), DELHI & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 202
Gorkha Security Services vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 203
MAHUA MOITRA v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 204
Morgan Securities & Credits Pvt Ltd. vs Samtel Display Systems Ltd. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 205
NEETA BHARDWAJ & ORS. v. KAMLESH SHARMA 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 206
UNIVERSITY OF DELHI v. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 207
RAKESH KUMAR SHARMA v. MOTHER DAIRY FRUIT & VEGETABLES PVT LTD 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 208
NATIONAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE FOR CENTRAL LEGISLATION ON CONSTRUCTION LABOUR v. DELHI BUILDING AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION WORKERS BOARD 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 209
MOHD. ARSHAD AHMAD v. PRAMOD CHAUHAN SHO P.S. NABI KARIM 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 210
The Commissioner Of Income Tax - International Taxation Versus S.A.Chitra Ventures Ltd. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 211
Prime Interglobe Private Limited vs Super Milk Products Private Limited 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 212
Case Title: Surya Alloy Industries Ltd Vs Union Of India And Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 172
The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Sachin Datta held that once a party has agreed to constituting an arbitral tribunal, it is precluded from subsequently opposing the appointment of an arbitrator based on the alleged non-fulfillment of pre-arbitral steps.
Case Title: M/S Axalta Coating Systems India Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Madhuban Motors Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 173
The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani held that mere expression of "place of arbitration" does not automatically indicate the seat and the determination of the seat should be inferred from other clauses in the agreement and the conduct of the parties.
The bench held that the seat was in Delhi as the contract clause specified that the venue for arbitral proceedings would be in New Delhi, and it vested exclusive jurisdiction in the courts of law in Delhi for all disputes arising from the Supply Agreement.
Title: SWATI SINGH v. JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 174
The Delhi High Court has recently observed that educational campuses cannot be allowed to be converted into political platforms to propagate party politics.
“Discipline in students in educational institutions is of the essence. There can be no compromise in that regard. While there can be no proscription against students engaging in political activities, they cannot be allowed to do so in a manner which would disrupt normal campus life, or the orderly conduct of affairs in the educational institution of which they are a part,” Justice C Hari Shankar said.
Title: PHILLIPS 66 COMPANY v. RAAJ UNOCAL LUBRICANTS LIMITED
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 175
The Delhi High Court has allowed examination of two witnesses in a commercial suit, residing in the United States of America (USA), to be conducted through video conferencing mode as per the High Court of Delhi Rules for Video Conferencing for Courts, 2021.
Justice Sanjeev Narula said courts must foster an environment where the reliability of testimony, whether delivered in person or remotely, remains unimpeachable.
Title: COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 176
The Delhi High Court has constituted a six-member committee to give recommendations and suggestions for ramping up medical infrastructure and optimization of existing resources in various hospitals in the national capital, either owned by the Delhi Government or the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD).
“With only six CT Scan machines being available in nineteen Delhi Government hospitals (which cater to a population in excess of three crores), the infrastructure needs to be ramped up manifold,” a division bench comprising of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora said.
Title: PRAVEEN@NAVEEN@VICKY v. STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 177
The Delhi High Court has observed that criminal activity within jail premises may be regarded as a “significant departure from the rehabilitative process which may weigh against an inmate's parole eligibility.
“Parole, which is a conditional release from the jail, is granted by the competent authority, and the same is contingent upon several factors including the behaviour of prisoner within the jail premises, and his demonstration of readiness for reintegration into society. Criminal acts committed within the jail premises go against the very purpose of rehabilitation and correcting the prisoners/ convicts,” Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said.
Title: DEBARATI NANDEE v. MS. TRIPTI GURHA & ANR and other connected matters
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 178
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the right to adopt cannot be raised to the status of a fundamental right within Article 21 of the Constitution of India, nor can it be raised to a level granting Prospective Adoptive Parents (PAPs) the right to demand their choice of who to adopt.
Justice Subramonium Prasad said that there is no right at all to insist on the adoption of a particular child before the final order of adoption is passed by the District Magistrate under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
Title: DR. AMIT KUMAR v. BHARATI COLLEGE
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 179
The Delhi High Court has observed that the act of sexual harassment by teachers with their students has witnessed a widespread occurrence which is a serious offence and abuse of a position of power.
Justice Chandra Dhari Singh said teachers are gifted with the power to impart wisdom and shape the minds of children who are the future and it is imperative that such power is not misused.
Case Title: M/S S.K Agencies vs M/S DFM Foods
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 180
The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Sachin Datta dismissed the notion that the arbitration clause would cease to exist with the termination of the contract. The bench emphasized that the arbitration clause, as part of the contract, should be treated as an independent agreement.
Case Title: The Commissioner Of Income Tax Versus Mitsubishi Corporation India P. Ltd
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 181
The Delhi High Court has held that the assessee, Mitsubishi Corporation, is not liable to deduct TDS under Section 195(1) of the Income Tax Act where the sum paid was not chargeable to tax in India.
The bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher has observed that the assessee could have taken recourse to the DTAAs qua the reformulated question since the provisions contained therein were more beneficial. Therefore, the business connection test had no relevance once it was established that MC Metal (Thailand) and Metal One (Singapore) did not have a PE in India.
Title: VALLABHBHAI PATEL CHEST INSTITUTE v. NISHIKESH TYAGI & ANOTHER
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 182
The Delhi High Court has said that it is a sorry state of affairs in the Constitutional Courts of the country that the poor labourers are forced to fight tooth and nail to get justice for themselves.
While dealing with a case which took more than two decades to reach to a conclusion leaving a poor worker in a “state of profound uncertainty”, Justice Chandra Dhari Singh said:
Title: JAMIA ARABIA NIZAMIA WELFARE EDUCATION SOCIETY v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY THROUGH ITS VICE CHAIRMAN & ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 183
Observing that illegal and unauthorised construction is going in the national capital at an unprecedented scale which is unheard of, the Delhi High Court on Tuesday said that the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) and Delhi Development Authority (DDA) must put structural reforms in place to deal with the issue.
A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora said that in today's time, the MCD is continuing to use tapes and strings to seal a building which is why sealing and demolition action is not having a deterrent effect.
Case Title: SHIBU SOREN v. LOKPAL OF INDIA & ANR.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 184
The Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal moved by Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM) Chief Shibu Soren against a single judge's order refusing to interfere with the proceedings initiated by Lokpal of India against him in connection with a disproportionate assets case.
A division bench comprising Justice Rekha Palli and Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar found no reason to interfere with the single judge's order which held that the writ petition filed by Soren was premature.
Title: RAGHAV AWASTHI v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 185
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a plea seeking direction on the Union Government to block an article published by digital news platform 'The Print' on Research and Analysis Wing (RAW), observing that the publication involves facets of freedom of press as well as right to know.
A division bench comprising of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora rejected a plea moved by lawyer Raghav Awasthi seeking framing of guidelines that no media outlet is permitted to publish any source-based speculation as to whether any government officer or diplomat posted abroad is working for Indian Intelligence Agency.
Title: TTK PRESTIGE LIMITED v. BAGHLA SANITARYWARE PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 186
In a trademark dispute between TTK Prestige Ltd and Baghla Sanitaryware, the Delhi High Court dismissed an application by TTK Prestige Ltd seeking to submit additional documents under Order XI Rule 1(5) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, while emphasizing the necessity for diligence in presenting evidence and adhering to strict deadlines under the Commercial Courts Act.
Title: VIJAY DAHIYA v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 187
The Delhi High Court has granted one month's parole to a murder convict, sentenced to life imprisonment, for accompanying his son for Board examinations, observing that his presence is both reasonable and in the best interest of the child's welfare.
Title: VINOD NAGAR v. NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 188
The Delhi High Court has said that the bar provided under Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, cannot be invoked in a case where evidence against the accused “appears to be unbelievable” and “does not seem to be sufficient for the purpose of conviction.”
“The Courts are not expected to accept every allegation made by the prosecution as a gospel truth,” Justice Amit Mahajan said while granting bail to a man in an NDPS case.
Case Title: Aroh Foundation Versus Commissioner Of Income Tax Exemption & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 189
The Delhi High Court has held that a mere deduction of TDS by a donor on grants would not disentitle the assessee-NGO from exemption under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act.
Title: PO v. VP
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 190
The Delhi High Court has observed that the doctrine of absolute privilege prohibits entertainment of claims made against judges, counsel, witnesses or parties qua judicial proceedings in Courts or tribunals.
A division bench comprising of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Amit Bansal said that the privilege extends to witness statements, testimonies, and documents properly used and regularly prepared for use in judicial proceedings.
Title: GLAXO GROUP LIMITED v. ANGLO-FRENCH DRUGS AND INDUSTRIES LTD. & ANR
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 191
The Delhi High Court has recently expressed displeasure with a lawyer who joined court proceedings through virtual conferencing mode in a moving vehicle, observing that such appearance “undermines the formalities of judicial process.”
Justice Sanjeev Narula was hearing a commercial suit in which the defendant's counsel joined the proceedings through a video conferencing mechanism from a moving vehicle.
Title: CASTROL LIMITED v. RAJESH KUMAR TUTEJA, TRADING AS KRISHNA INTERNATIONAL AND ANR.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 192
The Delhi High Court has awarded Rs. 12 lakhs as costs and damages to Castrol Limited while decreeing its suit against two individuals manufacturing engine oil products under the mark “Newcast Roi Racing.”
Justice Sanjeev Narula said that although the defendants' mark may seemingly appear distinct from Castrol, it was strategically presented in a manner that creates a deceptive similarity to the latter's registered trademark.
After Settlement, Nokia Withdraws Patent Infringement Suits Against Oppo, Vivo From Delhi High Court
Title: NOKIA TECHNOLOGIES OY v. GUANGDONG OPPO MOBILE TELECOMMUNICATIONS CORP LTD & ORS. and other connected matters
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 193
Nokia Technologies Oy has withdrawn the patent infringement suits filed by it against Chinese smartphone manufacturers Oppo and Vivo, after a settlement was arrived at between them.
Justice Prathiba M Singh dismissed as withdrawn the suits as well as the counterclaim filed by the parties, in terms of the Litigation Settlement Agreement.
Title: ASLAM & ORS. v. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 194
The Delhi High Court has ordered for conduct of a meeting to resolve the issue of non-payment of salaries since May 2022 to the Imams, Muazzins and Muftis at the mosques registered with the Delhi Waqf Board.
Justice Sachin Datta directed the Chief Executive Officer or Administrator of the Delhi Waqf Board and the Delhi Government's Principal Secretary of Finance Department to convene a meeting and resolve the issue regarding payment of salaries.
Senior Citizens Act Can't Be Used For Settling Property Disputes: Delhi High Court
Title: MAHESHWARI DEVI v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 195
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the Senior Citizens Act was enacted for the protection of the senior citizens and cannot be used for settling property disputes.
“The Senior Citizens Act, 2007 was enacted with the objective to provide a mechanism to secure maintenance and ensure welfare of senior citizens left bereft of support, financial or otherwise. The Act being a social legislation, ought to be construed liberally and its provisions should be implemented in light of the aims and objectives with which the Act was enacted, which for all intents and purposes in the immediate case herein is to ensure that a senior citizen without any semblance of support is not further deprived of the property and so that there is no threat to their life,” Justice Subramonium Prasad said.
Title: X v. Y
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 196
The Delhi High Court has observed that raising a voice against alleged cruelty does not, in any way, indicate that the complainant is not interested in continuing with the marriage or is not ready to adjust.
A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna said that what is important is whether the allegations leveled are premised upon facts or concocted.
Title: Shashvat Nakrani v. Ashneer Grover
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 197
The Delhi High Court ordered an expeditious trial of the suit filed by BharatPe's co-founder Shashvat Nakrani seeking to restrain the fintech company's former Managing Director Ashneer Grover from alienating, transferring, or creating any third-party rights in the “unpaid shares” bought from him.
A division bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Amit Bansal requested the single judge, before whom the matter is pending, to frame issues in the suit on February 28, the date fixed for the next hearing.
Title: RV v. NAVBHARAT TIMES & ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 198
The Delhi High Court has recently directed various media houses, social media platforms and search engines to take down allegedly defamatory and morphed images of a woman BJP MLA from Bihar.
Passing an interlocutory order in the MLA's suit, Justice Prateek Jalan directed the media houses, social media platforms and an individual, a political associate who she claimed circulated the photos, not to publish the images or other pictures of similar nature.
Case Title: Varun Sood Versus ACIT
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 199
The Delhi High Court has held that TDS prosecution can't be initiated against any office holder in a corporation without establishing an administrative connection.
The bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Purushaindra Kumar has observed that merely because a person holds an office in a corporate entity, it would not be sufficient to place him as a principal officer until and unless he is established to be connected with the management or administration of the company.
Case Title: Swashbuckler Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. vs Avdesh Mittal & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 200
The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma rejected an argument that a letter of intent was a non-binding agreement and noted that the arbitration agreement contained in the letter of intent should be treated as an independent and binding agreement. Further, it held that the referral court at Section 11 stage should not examine or impound an unstamped instrument and should leave it for determination by the arbitral tribunal.
Case Title: M/s NHPC Ltd Vs M/s Jaiprakash Associates Ltd.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 201
The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh held that partial setting aside of an award is valid and justified as long as the part proposed for annulment is independent and can be validly incised without affecting other components. The bench held that it held that under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, when the Court considers the power to partially set aside, it does not amount to a modification or variation of the entire award.
Title: THE MANAGING COMMITTEE OF DELHI WAQF BOARD v. THE GOVERNMENT OF NCT (GNCT), DELHI & ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 202
The Delhi High Court dismissed a plea seeking permission to offer prayers and visit the graves on the occasion of Shab-e-Barat at the site of recently demolished 600-year-old mosque, Masjid Akhonji, in city's Mehrauli area.
The mosque, along with Madrasa Bahrul Uloom and various graves, were demolished by the DDA on January 30.
Case Title: Gorkha Security Services vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 203
The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Mohan Kumar Ohri held that an arbitral award lacking adequate reasoning suffers from the inherent flaw of patent illegality. It emphasized that a reasoned order should be proper, intelligible, and adequate, and failure to adhere to these standards can lead to challenges under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Title: MAHUA MOITRA v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT & ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 204
The Delhi High Court dismissed the plea moved by Trinamool Congress leader Mahua Moitra seeking to restrain the Enforcement Directorate (ED) from leaking any “confidential or unverified information” to the media in relation to the investigation against her under the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (FEMA).
Case Title: Morgan Securities & Credits Pvt Ltd. vs Samtel Display Systems Ltd.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 205
The Delhi High Court single bench comprising Justice Sachin Datta held that an award suffering from internal contradictions is considered perverse and patently illegal under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Case Title: NEETA BHARDWAJ & ORS. v. KAMLESH SHARMA
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 206
The Delhi High Court has ordered that no jagran or religious program will be held in the premises of city's Kalkaji mandir without permission of the Administrator, who has been appointed by the Court and given full management and control of the temple.
Title: UNIVERSITY OF DELHI v. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE & ANR.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 207
The Delhi High Court disposed of a plea moved by the Delhi University against protests carried out by Dr. Ritu Singh, a former professor of the varsity, and her followers in the North Campus.
Title: RAKESH KUMAR SHARMA v. MOTHER DAIRY FRUIT & VEGETABLES PVT LTD
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 208
The Delhi High Court has recently objected to the filing of an appeal on behalf of a person who went missing even before the impugned order was passed by the trial court, observing that such practice, if allowed, can lead to catastrophic consequences.
Title: NATIONAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE FOR CENTRAL LEGISLATION ON CONSTRUCTION LABOUR v. DELHI BUILDING AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION WORKERS BOARD
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 209
The Delhi High Court has ruled that denial of benefits to construction workers by the Delhi Building & Other Construction Workers Welfare Board on the ground that the worker has failed to pay contribution to renew his or her registration after the validity of the registration has come to an end is incorrect.
Title: MOHD. ARSHAD AHMAD v. PRAMOD CHAUHAN SHO P.S. NABI KARIM
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 210
The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi Police to provide police assistance to the Imam of Masjid Dargah of Hazrat Khwaja Baqi Billah, situated in the city's Paharganj area, and to ensure that the festival of Shab-e-Baraat is carried out unhindered.
Case Title: The Commissioner Of Income Tax - International Taxation Versus S.A.Chitra Ventures Ltd.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 211
The Delhi High Court has held that the AO, under Section 144C of the Income Tax Act, would have no jurisdiction to pass a draft assessment order in the absence of "any variation in the income or loss returned," which is prejudicial to the interest of the assessee.
Case Title: Prime Interglobe Private Limited vs Super Milk Products Private Limited
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 212
The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri held that in cases where there are analogous arbitration proceedings related to other agreements, there is no need to invoke fresh arbitration by issuing a notice under Section 21 of the Arbitration Act. It held that there isn't a notice requirement under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.