Citations 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 77 to 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 108NOMINAL INDEXARUN RAMCHANDRAN PILLAI v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 77 KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES COMMISSION v. MR ASHISH SINGH AND ORS 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 78 OXFAM INDIA v. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (CENTRAL), DELHI-2 & ANR. and other connected matters 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 79 SHIBU SOREN v. LOKPAL...
Citations 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 77 to 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 108
NOMINAL INDEX
ARUN RAMCHANDRAN PILLAI v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 77
KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES COMMISSION v. MR ASHISH SINGH AND ORS 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 78
OXFAM INDIA v. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (CENTRAL), DELHI-2 & ANR. and other connected matters 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 79
SHIBU SOREN v. LOKPAL OF INDIA & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 80
CPIO v. Girish Mittal 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 81
A.V. PREM NATH v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 82
R v. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 83
AASHISH GUPTA v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 84
PIYUSH GUPTA v. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 85
MS KENT RO SYSTEMS LTD v. THE ADVERTISING STANDARDS COUNCIL OF INDIA THROUGH ITS GENERAL SECRETARY & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 86
Aryan Timber Store Through Its Prop Virender Kumar Versus Sales Tax Officer 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 87
X v. Y 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 88
INFINITI RETAIL LIMITED vs M/S CROMA -SHARE & ORS 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 89
Techfab International Pvt Ltd v. MIDIMA Holdings Limited 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 90
SH. FIROZ AHMAD v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 91
STARBUCKS CORPORATION & ANR. v. NATIONAL INTERNET EXCHANGE OF INDIA & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 92
NEETU GROVER v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 93
Makarand Suresh Mhadlekar v. Rahul Gandhi & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 94
DR. SNEHASHISH BHATTACHARYA & ORS. v. SOUTH ASIAN UNIVERSITY 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 95
DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF HEALTH SERVICES v. SOM PAN PRODUCT PVT. LTD. and other connected matter 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 96
MOHIT PILANIA v. THE STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 97
SK v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 98
NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 99
MANJINDER SINGH SIRSA v. STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 100
JAIDEEP SINGH SENGER@ATUL SINGH v. CBI 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 101
LEVI STRAUSS AND CO v. NAB PRODUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED AND ORS & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 102
X v. Y 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 103
LOTUS HERBALS PRIVATE LIMITED v. DPKA UNIVERSAL CONSUMER VENTURES PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 104
Arjun Mall Retail Holdings Pvt Ltd v. Gunocen Inc 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 105
M/s K.S. Jain Builders v. Indian Railway Welfare Organisation 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 106
Vingro Developments Pvt Ltd v. Nitya Shree Developers Pvt Ltd 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 107
Mrs. Vinnu Goel v. Deputy Commissioner of Stamp Registration & Ors 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 108
Title: ARUN RAMCHANDRAN PILLAI v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 77
The Delhi High Court has refused to extend the interim bail granted to Hyderabad based businessman Arun Ramachandra Pillai in the money laundering case connected to the alleged liquor policy scam.
Pillai was granted interim bail on December 28 last year on the ground of medical condition of his wife who had undergone a surgery.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma however granted extension of three days of interim bail to Pillai, who was asked to surrender on January 20, for travelling back to the national capital and making arrangement of an attendant for his wife, if not made yet.
Title: KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES COMMISSION v. MR ASHISH SINGH AND ORS
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 78
The Delhi High Court has recently ordered suspension of a website under the name of “Khadi Organic” which was promoting itself as an “official website for sale of Ayodhya Ram Mandir prasad” on various social media platforms.
The website was offering for delivery of free prasad from the Pran Pratishta ceremony scheduled to be held today at the Ram Temple in Ayodhya, Uttar Pradesh.
Title: OXFAM INDIA v. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (CENTRAL), DELHI-2 & ANR. and other connected matters
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 79
The Delhi High Court has recently stayed the order passed by the Income Tax department cancelling the tax exemption status of two non-government organisations, Oxfam India and CARE India.
A division bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav passed the order identical to an interim order passed on August 25 last year in favour of leading public policy think tank, Centre for Policy Research and said that the two NGOs shall also be entitled to identical interim reliefs.
Case Title: SHIBU SOREN v. LOKPAL OF INDIA & ANR.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 80
The Delhi High Court has refused to interfere at this stage with the proceedings initiated by Lokpal of India against Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM) Chief Shibu Soren in connection with a disproportionate assets case.
Justice Subramonium Prasad said that the plea moved by Soren challenging the Lokpal proceedings is “premature at this juncture”.
Title: CPIO v. Girish Mittal
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 81
The Delhi High Court has set aside an order of the Central Information Commission (CIC) directing the Income Tax (IT) department to provide details regarding the tax exemption granted to the PM Cares Fund under the Right to Information Act, 2005.
Justice Subramonium Prasad observed that the CIC does not have the jurisdiction to direct furnishing of information provided for in Section 138 of the Income Tax Act (disclosure of information respecting assessees.
Title: A.V. PREM NATH v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 82
The Delhi High Court on Monday refused to quash an FIR against former 1997-batch Danics officer AV Prem Nath, prematurely retired from service in October last year over molestation charges, for allegedly inducing a to file a false complaint against YVVJ Rajshekhar, Delhi Government's Special Secretary (Services and Vigilance), in return for a job.
Justice Amit Sharma said that it is not a case where it can be safely concluded at this stage that no offence is made out against Nath.
Delhi High Court Recalls Order Allowing Woman To Terminate 29 Weeks Pregnancy After Husband's Death
Title: R v. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE & ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 83
The Delhi High Court has recalled its recent order allowing a woman to terminate her pregnancy of 29 weeks as she was suffering with extreme trauma after her husband's death.
“The order is recalled,” Justice Subramonium Prasad said while allowing an application moved by the Central Government seeking recall of the order passed on January 04.
Title: AASHISH GUPTA v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 84
The National Testing Agency (NTA) has assured the Delhi High Court that in future, the final answer key for Central University Entrance Test (CUET-UG) exam would be uploaded on its website at least a day prior to the final declaration of result.
Justice C Hari Shankar was given the assurance that the final answer key would be accessible only through the individual login ID and password of the candidate concerned.
“The Court is satisfied with the explanation. The NTA is directed to ensure that these assurances are scrupulously adhered to, in future,” the court said.
Title: PIYUSH GUPTA v. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 85
The Delhi Government has told the Delhi High Court that the Online Single Window System (OSWS) portal for seamless processing of payment of professional fees to the standing counsels will be made operational within two weeks.
The Delhi Government told a division bench comprising of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora that the aspect of fee revision, including cap on appearances, of the empanelled lawyers is pending consideration with the Law Minister.
Title: MS KENT RO SYSTEMS LTD v. THE ADVERTISING STANDARDS COUNCIL OF INDIA THROUGH ITS GENERAL SECRETARY & ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 86
The Delhi High Court has observed that advertising is a part of commercial speech recognized under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India and any restraint on such a right can be placed only with some authority of law.
Justice Prathiba M Singh said that exaggerations, puffery, and hyperbole are part of advertising that cannot be completely curtailed, except in accordance with law.
GST Registration Can't be Cancelled Retrospectively For Non-Filing Of Returns: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Aryan Timber Store Through Its Prop Virender Kumar Versus Sales Tax Officer
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 87
The Delhi High Court has held that GST registration cannot be cancelled with retrospective effect for mere non-filing of returns.
The bench of Justice Sanjeev Sachdev and Justice Ravinder Dudeja has observed that simply because a taxpayer has not filed the returns for some period does not mean that the taxpayer's registration is required to be cancelled, with a retrospective date also covering the period when the returns were filed and the taxpayer was compliant.
Delhi High Court Grants Divorce To Man From 'Non Adjusting Wife' On Grounds Of Cruelty
Title: X v. Y
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 88
The Delhi High Court recently granted divorce to a man on the grounds of cruelty by his wife, observing that she had a “non-adjusting attitude” and no maturity to sort out the differences with him without his public humiliation due to which he suffered mental cruelty.
A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna said that no fruitful purpose would be served in flogging a dead horse and granted divorce to the husband.
Title: INFINITI RETAIL LIMITED vs M/S CROMA -SHARE & ORS
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 89
The Delhi High Court has directed the Union Government to permanently block access to three websites which were defrauding people by taking money under the pretext of recruiting them at Tata-owned Croma, the electronics retail store chain.
Justice Sanjeev Narula also ordered permanent suspension and disabling of UPI IDs and mobile numbers in respect of the websites.
Delhi High Court Halts PCA Arbitration Over Arbitrator Appointment Breach
Case Title: Techfab International Pvt Ltd v. MIDIMA Holdings Limited
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 90
The High Court of Delhi has stayed a PCA Arbitration between an African and an Indian Entity due to the constitution of the tribunal in violation of the arbitration agreement.
The bench of Justice Anup J. Bhambhani, dealing with a suit seeking anti-arbitration injunction and an application seeking ad-interim injunction, restrained the defendant from proceeding further with the arbitral proceedings in PCA Case No. AA773.
Title: SH. FIROZ AHMAD v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 91
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation against the stipulation of an additional qualification and higher merit for being appointed as a Director of an Indian Institute of Management (IIM).
A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora upheld the Centre's recent notification making it mandatory for the applicants to have first-class degrees in both Bachelor's and Master's, along with a Ph.D. or equivalent from a reputed institute, for being appointed to the post.
Title: STARBUCKS CORPORATION & ANR. v. NATIONAL INTERNET EXCHANGE OF INDIA & ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 92
The Delhi High Court has directed Google to suspend URLs of various Google Forms inviting general public to apply for “Starbucks Franchise”. Starbucks does not work on a franchise model in India.
Justice Anish Dayal also said that Starbucks, the multinational chain of coffeehouses, will be at liberty to file an affidavit listing out other similar URLs of Google Forms after which Google may suspend the same.
Title: NEETU GROVER v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 93
The Delhi High Court has upheld the validity of Section 5(v) of the Hindu Marriage Act which states that no marriage can be solemnized between parties who are related to each other as “sapindas”, unless it is sanctioned by usage or custom governing them.
A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora said that if the choice of a partner in a marriage is left unregulated, incestuous relationship may gain legitimacy.
Have Deleted Tweet Disclosing Identity Of Minor Rape Victim: Rahul Gandhi To Delhi High Court
Case Title: Makarand Suresh Mhadlekar v. Rahul Gandhi & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 94
Congress leader Rahul Gandhi told the Delhi High Court that he has taken down his tweet allegedly disclosing the identity and sensitive details about the minor girl, who was raped and murdered in 2021.
A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora was also informed by the counsel appearing for X, formerly Twitter, that the tweet in question has been deleted by Gandhi.
Accordingly, the bench disposed of a PIL moved by Makarand Suresh Mhadlekar, a social activist, seeking legal action and registration of FIR against Gandhi for allegedly disclosing the identity of the minor victim.
Title: DR. SNEHASHISH BHATTACHARYA & ORS. v. SOUTH ASIAN UNIVERSITY
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 95
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the South Asian University is not amenable to the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as it enjoys the status of an international organization having privileges and immunities conferred upon it under various enactments.
Justice Chandra Dhari Singh said that the varsity, being an organization deriving its powers from a 2007 inter-governmental agreement, is an international organization where the Government of India does not hold any control over its functioning, administration and finances despite it being situated in India.
Title: DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF HEALTH SERVICES v. SOM PAN PRODUCT PVT. LTD. and other connected matter
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 96
The Delhi High Court today upheld the stay on the show cause notices issued to two companies in 2018 by the Director General of Health Services (DGHS) over the allegations of indulging in surrogate advertisements for promoting their products Dilbagh Pan Masala and Vimal Elaichi.
Justice Dharmesh Sharma dismissed the appeals moved by DGHS against the trial court orders which granted stay on the show cause notices in the suits filed by the companies.
Title: MOHIT PILANIA v. THE STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 97
The Delhi High Court has said that a judicial officer by virtue of being a judge does not waive of the fundamental rights which are available to other citizens, including the social and private rights to look after and stand by his or her family.
“Similarly as an accused cannot be denied justice in case a judicial officer or his family member is a complainant in a criminal case, the judicial officer and his family too cannot be denied justice in case, they are victims, as it will amount to denying fundamental, private and social rights to a judicial officer and his family which are otherwise available to other citizens and persons of the community. Being a judicial officer should not result in denial of justice to him or his family in his individual capacity and be merely dismissed as occupational hazards,” Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said.
Title: SK v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 98
The Delhi High Court has imposed of cost of Rs. 25,000 on a husband for seeking registration of a fake rape case against his wife's cousin, alleging that the said cousin raped her. The allegations were denied by the wife.
Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta observed that prima facie, the proceedings were initiated by the husband with oblique motives and intention to gain some advantage in the matrimonial proceedings against his wife.
Title: NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 99
The Delhi High Court has issued a slew of directions to the Delhi Government and its Directorate of Education (DoE) to ensure the smooth functioning, operation and maintenance of seven special schools and hostels in the national capital for visually impaired children.
A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora directed that the DoE shall be responsible for providing hostel facilities to all the students admitted to the Special Schools by ensuring timely and quality food, uniform, clothes, recreation facilities and all facilities required for meeting daily needs of the students.
Title: MANJINDER SINGH SIRSA v. STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 100
The Delhi High Court has refused to stay the criminal proceedings against BJP leader Manjinder Singh Sirsa in a criminal defamation case filed by former president of the Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management Committee, Manjit Singh GK.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma upheld the trial court order passed on November 29 last year which upheld the summons issued to Sirsa by an ACMM court.
Title: JAIDEEP SINGH SENGER@ATUL SINGH v. CBI
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 101
The Delhi High Court has refused to suspend the sentence of the brother of expelled BJP MLA Kuldeep Singh Senger, convicted for causing the death of the father of the 2018 Unnao rape victim.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma dismissed the application moved by Jaideep Singh Senger seeking suspension of his 10-year sentence awarded in March 2020, during the pendency of his appeal against the same.
Title: LEVI STRAUSS AND CO v. NAB PRODUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED AND ORS & ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 102
The Delhi High Court has permanently restrained a manufacturing company here from selling denim jeans using a stitching design mark identical and similar to that of Levis Strauss.
Justice Sanjeev Narula decreed the suit filed by Levis Staruss in its favour and permanently restrained the manufacturer, Nab Productions Private Limited, its Directors and Head of Planning and Operations.
Title: X v. Y
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 103
The Delhi High Court has observed that a litigant cannot be allowed to take for granted the proceedings initiated by a victim of domestic violence under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
“The DV Act was enacted to provide more effective protection to the rights of women granted under the Constitution, who are the victim of violence, of any kind, occurring within the family. The legislature also noting the victimization of the women has provided a mechanism for grant of maintenance to women who are not in a position to maintain themselves. Such proceedings cannot be taken in such a light manner as pleaded by the petitioner,” Justice Amit Mahajan said.
Title: LOTUS HERBALS PRIVATE LIMITED v. DPKA UNIVERSAL CONSUMER VENTURES PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 104
The Delhi High Court has refused to pass an interim injunction order in favour of “Lotus Herbals” in its trademark infringement suit against Bollywood actress Deepika Padukone's self-care brand 82E's “Lotus Splash” gentle face cleanser.
Justice C Hari Shankar observed that the products are completely dissimilar in appearance with a wide difference in the prices and no case of passing off was made as the only common feature between the two marks is the word “lotus”.
Case Title: Arjun Mall Retail Holdings Pvt Ltd v. Gunocen Inc
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 105
The High Court of Delhi has held that a party cannot challenge an arbitral award on the ground of the unilateral appointment of the arbitrator if it did not challenge the appointment at an earlier stage.
The bench of Justices Suresh Kumar Kait and Neena Bansal Krishna upheld an arbitral award passed by a unilaterally appointed arbitrator by observing that aggrieved party did not challenge the award at an earlier stage either by filing an application under Section 11(6) or an application under Sections 13&14 of the A&C Act.
A Party Cannot Challenge An Arbitral Award After Receiving Amount Payable Under It: Delhi High Court
Case Title: M/s K.S. Jain Builders v. Indian Railway Welfare Organisation
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 106
The High Court of Delhi has held that a party that has received payment in terms of an arbitral award cannot challenge the award with respect to the disallowed claims.
The bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula held that acceptance of payments under the award would estop a party from challenging the award. It held that party after receiving payment cannot repudiate part award detrimental to it.
Case Title: Vingro Developments Pvt Ltd v. Nitya Shree Developers Pvt Ltd
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 107
The High Court of Delhi has held that directors of a company cannot be made parties to arbitration through 'Group of Companies' doctrine. It held that the relationship between the company and its director(s) is that of the 'Principal' and 'Agent' as defined under Section 182 of the Indian Contract Act.
The bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma held that in terms of Section 230 of the Indian Contract Act, the agent cannot be made personally liable for acts carried out on behalf of the principal.
Case Title: Mrs. Vinnu Goel v. Deputy Commissioner of Stamp Registration & Ors
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 108
The High Court of Delhi has allowed a writ petition enabling the petitioner to approach the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority to adjudicate/decide on the amount payable on the instrument despite the reference of the dispute arising out of the instrument to arbitration under Section 8 of the A&C Act.
The bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad held that merely because the arbitral tribunal is empowered to carry out the same exercise, it cannot deprive the High Court from entertaining a writ petition to determine if the state has been deprived of the revenue or not.