Citations 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 55 to 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 76NOMINAL INDEXNipun Malhotra vs Sony Pictures Films India Pvt Ltd 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 55X v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) AND ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 56JAMIA ARABIA NIZAMIA WELFARE EDUCATION SOCIETY v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY THROUGH ITS VICE CHAIRMAN & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 57SAGA MUSIC PRIVATE LIMITED v. ROGER DAVID & ORS. 2024...
Citations 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 55 to 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 76
NOMINAL INDEX
Nipun Malhotra vs Sony Pictures Films India Pvt Ltd 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 55
X v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) AND ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 56
JAMIA ARABIA NIZAMIA WELFARE EDUCATION SOCIETY v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY THROUGH ITS VICE CHAIRMAN & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 57
SAGA MUSIC PRIVATE LIMITED v. ROGER DAVID & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 58
ALLIED BLENDERS @ DISTILLERS PRIVATE LIMITED v. HERMES DISTILLERY PRIVATE LIMITED 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 59
PCIT Versus M/S Wig Investament 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 60
Oguljeren Hajyyeva Versus Commissioner Of Customs 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 61
Allied-Dynamic JV v. Ircon International Ltd 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 62
Simentech India Pvt Ltd v. BHEL 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 63
THE INDIAN EXPRESS P LTD v. THE INDIAN EXPRESS NEWSPAPERS WORKERS UNION REGD AND ANR 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 64
Bejon Kumar Misra v. GNCTD 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 65
MAHUA MOITRA v. DIRECTORATE OF ESTATES, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 66
NEERAJ SHARMA v. VINAY SHEEL SAXENA & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 67
APOORVA Y K v. SOUTH ASIAN UNIVERSITY 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 68
DR BALWINDER KUMAR SHARMA v. STATE OF UT CHANDIGARH 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 69
MAKSOOD AHMAD v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 70
Vivek Aggarwal v. Hemant Aggarwal 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 71
Jatinder Kaur & Ors v. Late Jagjit Singh & Investament 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 72
The Commissioner Of Income Tax - International Taxation -1 Versus Fox Network Group Singapore Pte Ltd. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 73
Mr. Gajendra Mishra v. Pokhrama Foundation 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 74
A v. B 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 75
X v. Y 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 76
Title: Nipun Malhotra vs Sony Pictures Films India Pvt Ltd
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 55
The Delhi High Court has refused to entertain a public interest litigation claiming that the film “Aankh Micholi”, which released in November last year, is derogatory to people with disabilities.
A division bench comprising of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora said that Courts generally do not interfere once the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) gives certificate to a film.
Title: X v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) AND ANR.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 56
Calling it a “twin promise of marriage”, the Delhi High Court has recently ordered framing of rape and criminal intimidation charges against a man who allegedly assured a married couple that after their divorce he will marry the wife and look after their children, but later refused to do so after entering into physical relationship with the said wife.
“It is thus a case of twin promise of marriage, i.e. to the complainant as well as her husband and family. Had he not promised or represented to her, she would not have entered into physical relations with him,” Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said.
Delhi High Court Halts Construction Of 'Unauthorised Guest House' Near Nizamuddin Dargah And Baoli
Title: JAMIA ARABIA NIZAMIA WELFARE EDUCATION SOCIETY v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY THROUGH ITS VICE CHAIRMAN & ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 57
The Delhi High Court has directed the city authorities to ensure that no further construction is carried out in an unauthorised guest house near centrally protected Nizamuddin Dargah and Baoli.
A division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora pulled up the authorities and expressed disapproval over the unauthorised construction.
Title: SAGA MUSIC PRIVATE LIMITED v. ROGER DAVID & ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 58
The Delhi High Court has restrained Pakistani-American rapper and singer Bohemia from engaging with third parties for making any sound recordings or musical works, without prior written approval of a Delhi based music company, Saga Music Private Limited.
Justice Anish Dayal also restrained Bohemia and his agents from posting any defamatory posts or content on social media platforms against the music company which claims that the singer violated terms and conditions of a performance agreement entered between them in 2019.
Title: ALLIED BLENDERS @ DISTILLERS PRIVATE LIMITED v. HERMES DISTILLERY PRIVATE LIMITED
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 59
The Delhi High Court has restrained a Karnataka-based manufacturer from selling whiskey and other liquor products under the “Peace Maker” label in a suit filed by alcoholic beverages manufacturer “Officer's Choice.”
Justice Prathiba M Singh said that prima facie, there was a clear attempt to indulge in “smart copying” by the manufacturer which would still be copying.
Case Title: PCIT Versus M/S Wig Investament
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 60
The Delhi High Court has held that transactions concerning mutual funds were in the nature of investment and not motivated by trade.
The bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Girish Kathpalia has observed that the intent has to be ascertained keeping in mind the magnitude and frequency of the transactions, the period for which shares are held, the purpose for which they are held, and how transactions are disclosed in the books of account.
Case Title: Oguljeren Hajyyeva Versus Commissioner Of Customs
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 61
The Delhi High Court has directed the Customs Commissioner to release the remaining amount after realizing the redemption fine and penalty from the seized foreign currency.
The bench of Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Ravinder Dudeja has observed that ordinarily, the adjudicating officer needs to give the owner of the goods the option to pay a fine in lieu of confiscation, and if such a fine is not paid within a period of 120 days, such an option will become void. But the goods seized in the present case are nothing else but foreign currency.
Case Title: Allied-Dynamic JV v. Ircon International Ltd
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 62
The High Court of Delhi has held that an arbitral award cannot be challenged on the ground of bias of arbitrator if no challenge to bias was made during the pendency of arbitral proceedings.
The bench of Justice Pratibha M. Singh held that a party that has fully participated in the arbitral proceedings without raising any challenge to the jurisdiction of the tribunal on ground of bias, cannot challenge the award directly under Section 34 of the A&C Act.
Case Title: Simentech India Pvt Ltd v. BHEL
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 63
ThePendente Lite And Future Interest Can't Be Included In The 'Aggregate Value Of Claim And Counterclaims' U/S 12 Of Commercial Courts Act: Delhi High Court has held that to determine the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court to deal with a challenge petition under Section 34 of the A&C Act, the value of the pendente lite and future interest cannot be included in the aggregate value of the claims and counter-claims to determine the 'Specified Value' as provided under Section 12 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (CCA).
The bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula held that Section 12(2) of the CCA stipulates that the 'aggregate value' of the claim and any counterclaim in a commercial dispute arbitration forms the basis for determining the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court.
Title: THE INDIAN EXPRESS P LTD v. THE INDIAN EXPRESS NEWSPAPERS WORKERS UNION REGD AND ANR
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 64
The Delhi High Court has set aside the order passed by an Industrial Tribunal last year increasing the age of retirement or superannuation of the workers of The Indian Express from 58 years to 60 years with effect from October 15, 2009, with all consequential benefits.
Justice Anish Dayal remanded the matter back to the Industrial Tribunal for fresh adjudication, after considering all materials which may be placed by the parties in detail to be examined with a fresh nuanced outlook and robust reasoning.
Title: Bejon Kumar Misra v. GNCTD
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 65
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a plea seeking a court-monitored probe into the allegations of fake laboratory tests being conducted at the moholla clinics set up by the Aam Aadmi Party government in the national capital.
A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora rejected an application moved by social activist Bejon Kumar Misra in his pending PIL against “unauthorised pathological labs and diagnostic centres” in Delhi.
Title: MAHUA MOITRA v. DIRECTORATE OF ESTATES, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA & ANR.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 66
The Delhi High Court has refused to stay the eviction order issued to Trinamool Congress leader Mohua Moitra asking her to vacate the government bungalow immediately, following her expulsion from the Lok Sabha in December last year.
Justice Girish Kathpalia dismissed Moitra's application seeking stay of the eviction order in view of the pendency of the issue of her expulsion from Lok Sabha before the Supreme Court, and the issue of extension of time to vacate the government accommodation being inextricably linked with that, coupled with the fact that as on date she has no right.
Delhi High Court Sets Aside Conviction Of Cop In Contempt Case Over Damages To Trees
Title: NEERAJ SHARMA v. VINAY SHEEL SAXENA & ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 67
The Delhi High Court has set aside the conviction of a police officer in a contempt case for damaging trees in the national capital during construction work in 2021.
Justice Mini Pushkarna also discharged the notice of contempt issued to the cop as well as three officers of Public Works Department (PWD). All four officials were convicted for contempt in June 2022.
Title: APOORVA Y K v. SOUTH ASIAN UNIVERSITY
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 68
The Delhi High Court has set aside two orders issued by the South Asian University expelling an LLM student over alleged acts of indiscipline, observing that the procedure adopted was sham and pre-determined.
“The entire exercise was, therefore, chimerical in character, with the clear intention, already formulated, to send the petitioner out,” Justice C Hari Shankar said.
Delhi High Court Orders Day To Day Trial In 2017 Haryana Judicial Paper Leak Case
Title: DR BALWINDER KUMAR SHARMA v. STATE OF UT CHANDIGARH
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 69
The Delhi High Court has asked a trial court in the national capital to expedite the trial in the case concerning the paper leak of Haryana Civil Services (Judicial Branch) Preliminary Examination, 2017, and take up the same on a day-to-day basis.
Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma directed the trial court to dispose of the matter positively on or before April 15 and sought a compliance report on the same.
Title: MAKSOOD AHMAD v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 70
The Delhi High Court has observed that an individual undergoing religious conversion for the purpose of marriage must be fully informed of the legal consequences associated with it and issued a slew of directions to be followed in conversion cases.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed that by providing a detailed understanding of the religious and its associated ramifications, the individual must be made aware of the potential shifts in his or her legal standing post-conversion.
Case Title: Vivek Aggarwal v. Hemant Aggarwal
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 71
The High Court of Delhi has held that an issue related to the bias of an arbitrator in conducting the arbitral proceedings cannot be determined by a Court while dealing with the application under Section 29A of the A&C Act.
The bench of Justice Pratibha M. Singh reiterated that the scope of Court's power under Section 29A is limited to the examination of whether the extension should be granted or not. It held that the grievance of a party with the conduct of arbitral proceedings or any other substantive challenge cannot be decided by the Court under Section 29A.
Case Title: Jatinder Kaur & Ors v. Late Jagjit Singh & Investament
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 72
The High Court of Delhi has held that the limitation period for the appointment of the substitute arbitrator is 3 years from the date when the right to apply for such appointment accrues.
The bench of Justice Pratibha M. Singh held that since the act does not provide for any explicit period for the appointment of a substitute arbitrator, the limitation shall be governed by the residual provision found in Article 137 of the Limitation Act which provides a period of 3 years as the limitation period from the date when the right to apply accrues.
Case Title: The Commissioner Of Income Tax - International Taxation -1 Versus Fox Network Group Singapore Pte Ltd.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 73
The Delhi High Court has held that fees received by assessees for sub-licensing sports broadcasting rights attributable to 'live feed' is not taxable as royalty.
The bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Girish Kathpalia has observed that once the Court came to the conclusion that a live telecast would not fall within the ambit of the expression “work”, it would be wholly erroneous to hold that the income derived by the assessee in respect of “live feed” would fall within clause (v) of Explanation 2 to Section 9(1)(vi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Case Title: Mr. Gajendra Mishra v. Pokhrama Foundation
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 74
The High Court of Delhi has held that a party cannot insist on fulfilment of pre-arbitration conciliation once it has itself terminated the agreement. It held that pre-arbitration conciliation provided in the agreement falls with the termination of the agreement.
The bench of Justice Pratibha M. Singh held that once a party has itself proceeded to terminate the agreement without approaching the Project Manager for conciliation, it cannot object to the maintainability of the petition seeking appointment of the arbitrator on the ground of non-fulfilment of pre-arbitral steps.
Title: A v. B
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 75
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the findings of cruelty against a wife in the divorce proceedings by itself cannot be a basis to deny her maintenance under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
Justice Amit Bansal also observed that a revision petition would lie to the High Court against an order passed by the Sessions Court in appeal under Section 29 of the Domestic Violence Act.
Title: X v. Y
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 76
The Delhi High Court has recently said that it is the child who suffers the most casualty in custody battle because even if either parent wins, the minor loses everything due to polarization of familial relations.
A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna said:
“Merely having a child does not make one a 'parent', rather the one who protects the child from being torn in such parental conflicts is the closest to being an 'ideal parent'. The focus should be the child's future and not the parents' past.”