Citations 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 213 to 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 252NOMINAL INDEXSteel Authority Of India Ltd vs Uniper Global Commodities. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 213Premoday Khakha v. State and other connected matter 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 214SANJEEV KUMAR MISHRA v. JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 215MS. KANISHKA (THROUGH MRS. SANTOSH (MOTHER) v. CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY...
Citations 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 213 to 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 252
NOMINAL INDEX
Steel Authority Of India Ltd vs Uniper Global Commodities. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 213
Premoday Khakha v. State and other connected matter 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 214
SANJEEV KUMAR MISHRA v. JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 215
MS. KANISHKA (THROUGH MRS. SANTOSH (MOTHER) v. CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION & ORS 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 216
The Commissioner Of Income Tax - International Taxation -3 Versus Relx Inc 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 217
COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 218
ALI MOHAMMED v. DG, CISF AND ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 219
MRS TEJINDER PAL GUJRAL v. S MANJINDER SINGH SIRSA & ORS. and other connected matters 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 220
Devender Kumar Kashyap vs Chander Muni. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 221
X v. Y 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 222
DR NAMIT GUPTA v. DELHI MEDICAL COUNCIL AND ANR 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 223
Apshara Garments Pvt. Ltd Versus Commissioner Of Delhi Goods And Service Tax 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 224
STAR INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED v. TERIIMERIDOORIYAN.COM & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 225
Umaxe Projects Private Limited vs Air Force Naval Housing Board 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 226
Jan Seva Welfare Society (Reg.) v. Union of India and Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 227
ASHA CHAND v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 228
MOHD ARIF ANSARI v. STATE OF GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 229
DEEPAK SEHGAL v. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 230
VISHWAJEET SINGH v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) and other connected matter 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 231
UNION OF INDIA & ORS v. SAMEER DNYANDEV WANKHEDE & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 232
SETU VINIT GOENKA v. NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 233
Smriti Irani v. Pawan Khera & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 234
MS. YOGAMAYA M.G. v. SUPREME COURT BAR ASSOCIATION REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 235
J.P. SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 236
ARCELORMITTAL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 237
MS. SUJATA KOHLI v. RAJIV KHOSLA 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 238
Aakash Educational Services Ltd Vs M/S Lotus Education & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 239
CENTRAL PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER v. KAILASH CHANDRA MOONDRA 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 240
Indian Highways Management Company Ltd. vs Prakash Asphaltings and Toll Highways (India) Pvt. Ltd. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 241
RESHMA v. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 242
X v. Y 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 243
The Executive Engineer & Ors Vs M/S Bholasingh Jaiprakash Construction Ltd & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 244
Zillion Infraprojecs Pvt. Ltd Through Anant Saxena Vs Fab-Tach Works & Constructons Pvt. Ltd. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 245
Govt. Of NCT of Delhi vs M/s R.S Sharma Contractors Pvt. Ltd 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 246
COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. STATE 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 247
X v. SQUINT NEON & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 248
ANUP BHENGRA @CHOTU v. THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 249
RATUL PURI v. BANK OF BARODA and other connected matters 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 250
Jagdish Bansal Versus Union Of India 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 251
M/s NHPC Ltd v. M/s Jaiprakash Associates Ltd 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 252
Case Title: Steel Authority Of India Ltd vs Uniper Global Commodities.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 213
The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Sachin Datta held that the court under Section 27 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 cannot determine the admissibility, relevancy, materiality, and weight of any evidence, as doing so would amount to impermissible interference with the Tribunal's proceedings.
Title: Premoday Khakha v. State and other connected matter
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 214
The Delhi High Court on Monday denied default bail to Delhi Government's suspended Women and Child Development Department officer Premoday Khakha, accused of raping a minor girl over several months and impregnating her. Court also denied relief to Khakha's wife.
Title: SANJEEV KUMAR MISHRA v. JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY & ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 215
Observing that those who suffer from disabilities as recognized by the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016, are no different from anyone, the Delhi High Court has said that the more appropriate term to use for such persons would be “differently abled” rather than “disabled”.
“The RPWD Act, and all laws which strive to provide support to a person suffering from a disability, merely seek to neutralize the disability, so that the person's ability matches those of the rest of his peers, and they stand on an equal footing. This is the heart of the theory of equal opportunity, which pervades Article 14 and, indeed, the Constitution as a whole,” Justice C Hari Shankar said.
Title: MS. KANISHKA (THROUGH MRS. SANTOSH (MOTHER) v. CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION & ORS
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 216
The Delhi High Court observed that the Central Board of Secondary Examination (CBSE) is expected to be vigilant regarding the entitlement of the students to appear in the examination.
Justice C Hari Shankar said that the CBSE has no right to stop a student from entering the examination hall, after issuing admit card.
Case Title: The Commissioner Of Income Tax - International Taxation -3 Versus Relx Inc
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 217
The Delhi High Court has held that subscription to legal databases cannot be construed as a transfer of copyright.
The bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav has observed that the subscription fees of the legal database LexisNex piad by an Indian subscriber neither comprise a transfer of copyright nor do they include a transfer of a right to apply technology and other related aspects, which are spoken of in Article 12(4)(b) of the DTAA.
Title: COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 218
The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi Government to complete the formalities of the selection process for filling vacancies in all the Child Welfare Committees (CWCs) and Juvenile Justice Boards (JJBs) in the national capital by April 15.
Title: ALI MOHAMMED v. DG, CISF AND ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 219
The Delhi High Court has said that Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) personnel can be deployed anywhere in India or abroad as per operational requirements and the administrative or operational exigencies can never be sidelined or disregarded.
Title: MRS TEJINDER PAL GUJRAL v. S MANJINDER SINGH SIRSA & ORS. and other connected matters
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 220
The Delhi High Court has found the President and General Secretary of Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management Committee guilty of intentionally not complying with a 2021 ruling that ordered payment of arrears of salaries to teachers and staff of Guru Harkrishan Public School (GHPS), in view of fixation of their pay under the 6th and 7th Pay Commission.
Case Title: Devender Kumar Kashyap vs Chander Muni.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 221
The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Rekha Palli held that when a party provides its incorrect address in proceedings cannot be permitted to urge that the invocation notice of arbitration under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was not served at the correct address.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 222
The Delhi High Court has said that it is unfortunate that in matrimonial litigations, the parties do not come out with their true income.
“Effort is always made to conceal the true income by the husband in order to avoid payment of maintenance to the wife and the child. On the other hand, effort is made by the wife to claim exorbitant amount as the income of the husband,”Justice Navin Chawla said.
Title: DR NAMIT GUPTA v. DELHI MEDICAL COUNCIL AND ANR
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 223
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a PIL challenging a notice issued by the Delhi Medical Council (DMC) directing any person practicing allopathy, the modern scientific system of medicine, in the national capital to be mandatorily registered with it, as per the Delhi Medical Council Act, 1997.
Case Title: Apshara Garments Pvt. Ltd Versus Commissioner Of Delhi Goods And Service Tax
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 224
The Delhi High Court has quashed the show cause notice, which was lacking reasons for retrospective cancellation of GST registration.
Title: STAR INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED v. TERIIMERIDOORIYAN.COM & ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 225
The Delhi High Court has granted a dynamic injunction in favour of Star India as it restrained 21 rogue websites from illegally streaming its content, including TV shows and movies broadcasted on STAR channels and OTT platform Disney+ Hotstar.
Case Title: Umaxe Projects Private Limited vs Air Force Naval Housing Board
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 226
The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri held that filing of the Section 29(A) application by a party did not amount to a waiver of its right to challenge the arbitrator's ineligibility under Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The bench held that filing an application under Section 29A of the Arbitration Act for an extension of the mandate did not amount to an express waiver in writing under Section 12(5).
Delhi High Court Orders Third-Party Audit Of MCD, DDA Public Toilets
Title: Jan Seva Welfare Society (Reg.) v. Union of India and Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 227
The Delhi High Court directed the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD), Delhi Development Authority (DDA), and North Delhi Municipal Corporation (NDMC) to get an audit done from a Union Government empanelled third-party auditor.
A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora was hearing a public interest litigation filed by Jan Sewa Welfare Society to ensure the availability of hygienic public urinals with clean water and electricity supply in the city.
Title: ASHA CHAND v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 228
The Delhi High Court has refused to direct the Union Government and Doordarshan to open a new 24 hours PAN India Doordarshan channel for the Sindhi Community, observing that it is purely a governmental function.
Title: MOHD ARIF ANSARI v. STATE OF GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 229
The Delhi High Court has recently observed that the intent of notifying a place under Section 8 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, is to ensure that it is not used for unlawful activities and is not to seize properties of innocent owners who are neither members of the unlawful association nor involved in unlawful activities.
Take Steps To Fill Vacancies In Municipal Taxation Tribunal: High Court To Delhi Govt
Title: DEEPAK SEHGAL v. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ANR.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 230
The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi Government to fill up the vacancies in the Municipal Taxation Tribunal and ensure that it is in place.
“It is hoped and expected that expeditious steps shall be taken in this regard,” Justice Sachin Datta said in an order passed on February 14.
Title: VISHWAJEET SINGH v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) and other connected matter
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 231
The Delhi High Court ruled that Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, does not fetter grant of bail to an accused on the ground of undue delay in the completion of trial.
Title: UNION OF INDIA & ORS v. SAMEER DNYANDEV WANKHEDE & ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 232
Modifying an order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) in August last year, the Delhi High Court has set aside the direction of passing a reasoned and speaking order before any action is initiated against Sameer Wankhede on the basis of an enquiry report in relation to the Cordelia cruise drugs case, after granting a personal hearing to him.
Title: SETU VINIT GOENKA v. NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY & ANR.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 233
The Delhi High Court has rejected a plea challenging the normalization procedure based on percentile score adopted by the National Testing Agency (NTA) for JEE (Mains) examination for entrance into the various Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs).
Case Title: Smriti Irani v. Pawan Khera & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 234
The Delhi High Court modified an interim injunction order passed in 2022 in favour of Union Minister Smriti Irani in her defamation case against three Congress leaders, on the aspect of taking down of content by social media intermediaries.
Title: MS. YOGAMAYA M.G. v. SUPREME COURT BAR ASSOCIATION REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 235
The Delhi High Court was told that the General Body Meeting of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) to discuss the aspect of nomination of women advocates as its Executive Members will be conducted within two months.
Title: J.P. SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 236
The Delhi High Court rejected a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking merger of various cities in North India with the national capital, and shifting Punjab's High Court to Jalandhar instead of Chandigarh.
Title: ARCELORMITTAL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 237
The Delhi High Court dismissed a plea moved by ArcelorMittal seeking approval and clearance to commence mining operations in Jharkhand's Saranda Forest Division.
Title: MS. SUJATA KOHLI v. RAJIV KHOSLA
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 238
The Delhi High Court has discharged Rajiv Khosla, lawyer and former High Court Bar Association President Rajiv Khosla, in the contempt case filed by retired judicial officer Sujata Kohli.
A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Manoj Jain observed that Kohli was not able to produce any material which may compel the court to form an opinion that Khosla committed any criminal contempt.
Case Title: Aakash Educational Services Ltd Vs M/S Lotus Education & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 239
The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma held that mere invalidation or unenforceability of the arbitrator appointment process does not render the entire arbitration clause void. The bench held that even if an arbitration award is set aside due to unilateral appointment and non-compliance with Section 12 of the Arbitration Act, fundamental agreement between the parties to submit their disputes to arbitration remains intact. Therefore, the parties can file a fresh application under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act for arbitrator appointment.
Title: CENTRAL PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER v. KAILASH CHANDRA MOONDRA
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 240
The Delhi High Court has set aside an order passed by the Chief Information Commission (CIC) directing the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) to provide information relating to Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust, set up by the Union Government to construct and manage the Ram temple in Ayodhya, under the Right to Information Act, 2005.
Case Title: Indian Highways Management Company Ltd. vs Prakash Asphaltings and Toll Highways (India) Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 241
The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Prateek Jalan held that the MSME Facilitation Council does not have the jurisdiction to arbitrate matters pertaining to individual service providers who do not fall under the definition of 'supplier' under the MSME Act. The same would be violative of Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Title: RESHMA v. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 242
The Delhi High Court has observed that policing is not tailored to serve the interests of any specific religious or any cultural community alone and has to be guided by the principles of impartiality, fairness, and reasonability.
“While respecting cultural sensitivities and religious practices, law enforcement agencies must prioritise the common good and uphold the law without discrimination,” Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed.
Title: X v. Y
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 243
The Delhi High Court has observed that the act of a wife in trying to turn the children against the father is a clear case of “parental alienation”, which amounts to “grave mental cruelty.”
Observing that a person may be a bad husband but that does not lead to the necessary conclusion of he being a bad father, a division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna said:
“Howsoever abysmal the differences maybe between the spouses, but in no realm can the act of the aggrieved spouse of igniting animosity and hostility in the minor child in an attempt to use the child as a weapon to get even with their spouse, could be justifiable.”
Case Title: The Executive Engineer & Ors Vs M/S Bholasingh Jaiprakash Construction Ltd & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 244
The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad held that Article 226 of the Constitution of India is an extraordinary remedy and cannot be invoked where a party has failed to invoke other remedies available to it under law. It held that if a party fails to challenge the arbitration award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, cannot approach the High Court by filing a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Section 29A Not Applicable To Arbitration Proceedings Commenced Before 2015: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Zillion Infraprojecs Pvt. Ltd Through Anant Saxena Vs Fab-Tach Works & Constructons Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 245
The Delhi High Court single bench Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri held that Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 which prescribes a time limit for issuance of arbitral award is not applicable to arbitration proceedings commenced before 2015 Amendment Act. It held that arbitral proceedings commence on the date when the Respondent receives the request for reference to arbitration. Section 29A mandates for the tribunal to make the award within a period of twelve months from the date of completion of pleadings.
Case Title: Govt. Of NCT of Delhi vs M/s R.S Sharma Contractors Pvt. Ltd
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 246
The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma held that arbitral proceedings before the arbitrator are not required to be technical in nature and the arbitrator is within its power to decide the same on the basis of material on record. The bench held that the arbitrator is the sole judge of the quality and quantity of evidence, and the court's role is not to reassess the material or correct the arbitrator's errors under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Title: COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. STATE
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 247
The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi Government to take steps to implement within four weeks the suggestions for improving the facilities and functioning of the children homes in the national capital.
A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Manoj Jain was referring to the suggestions made by Amicus Curiae, Senior Advocate Satish Tamta, in a suo motu case initiated by it in 2018.
Title: X v. SQUINT NEON & ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 248
While dealing with a woman's suit who posted a tweet on X (formerly Twitter) about an interview of a political figure and was later doxed by various individuals and entities, the Delhi High Court has observed that doxing, if permitted to go on unchecked, could result in violation of right to privacy.
Justice Prathiba M Singh said that aggrieved parties or individuals in cases of doxing cannot be rendered remedyless, because the individual would have suffered an injury as the privacy of the individual is breached.
Title: ANUP BHENGRA @CHOTU v. THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 249
The Delhi High Court has observed that the delay in testimony of a minor, who is a victim of sexual assault and human trafficking, before the trial court, cannot serve as a ground for bail to the accused.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma took note of the “realities of profound impact” of sexual assault and human trafficking on a minor victim, which extends beyond mere physical harm that inflicts enduring mental trauma.
Title: RATUL PURI v. BANK OF BARODA and other connected matters
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 250
The Delhi High Court has quashed the decision of Bank of Baroda and Punjab National Bank declaring businessman Ratul Puri as a “wilful defaulter” under the Master Circular on Wilful Defaulters, 2015, issued by the Reserve Bank of India.
Puri is the Chairman of Hindustan Power Projects Private Limited. The banks declared him as a wilful defaulter with respect to his association in another company, Moser Baer Solar Limited, as a result of which he was deprived from availing credit facilities for his prospective business enterprises.
'Cash' Excluded From Definition Of 'Goods', Can't Be Seized: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Jagdish Bansal Versus Union Of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 251
The Delhi High Court has directed the respondent department to forfeit or remit the cash seized from the premises of the petitioner to the petitioner along with interest.
Case Title: M/s NHPC Ltd v. M/s Jaiprakash Associates Ltd
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 252
The High Court of Delhi has held that the counterclaims allowed by the arbitral tribunal can be enforced under Section 36 of the A&C Act when the portion of the award granting larger sums to the judgment-debtor (claimant in the arbitration) is set aside.