Citations 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 109 to 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 134NOMINAL INDEXAJAY KUMAR v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 109ANAJALI PANDEY v. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 110RECKITT BENCKISER INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED v. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH: ITS SECRETARY & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 111ASHWINI KUMAR UPADHYAY v. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS 2024 LiveLaw...
Citations 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 109 to 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 134
NOMINAL INDEX
AJAY KUMAR v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 109
ANAJALI PANDEY v. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 110
RECKITT BENCKISER INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED v. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH: ITS SECRETARY & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 111
ASHWINI KUMAR UPADHYAY v. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 112
Sharjeel Imam v. State 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 113
R K KAPOOR, ADVOCATE v. THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 114
ZORA TRADERS LIMITED & ORS v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 115
KAMAL KANT AND COMPANY LLP v. RAASHEE FRAGRANCES INDIA PVT LTD 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 116
Mohammad Hamim & Anr. v. Facebook India Online Services Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 117
KASHMIR HARVARD EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTE v. PRESIDENT AND FELLOWS OF HARVARD COLLEGE 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 118
X v. Y 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 119
DHARAM NARAYAN GAUTAM v. STATE THROUGH ECONOMIC OFFENCES WING & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 120
SIYA OMAR THROUGH HER MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN PRIYANKA GUPTA & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 121
AMIT KUMAR & ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 122
MR MAHENDER KUMAR KHANDELWAL v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 123
Yasin Malik v. Union of India & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 124
CITIZENS WHISTLE BLOWER FORUM v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 125
BAL KISHAN GUPTA v. DDA 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 126
CPIO CBI v. Sanjiv Chaturvedi 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 127
X v. Y 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 128
MICHAL BENSON NWAOGU @ CHUNA BENSON v. STATE 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 129
A v. B 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 130
RAVI KUMAR v. ALL INDIA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 131
X v. Y 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 132
Naman Gupta Versus Commissioner Of Customs Airport And General 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 133
Shri Balaji Enterprises & Ors vs Reserve Bank Of India & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 134
Title: AJAY KUMAR v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 109
The Delhi High Court has imposed Rs. 10,000 costs on a man who sought gag order against Hindustan Times and Dainik Jagran, claiming that the newspaper reports which mentioned his name will have an adverse effect on the cases filed by him in different forums.
Justice Subramonium Prasad dismissed the plea moved by one Ajay Kumar seeking direction on the two newspapers to conceal his identity while circulating any news or article on him.
Title: ANAJALI PANDEY v. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 110
The Delhi High Court has ruled that carrying forward of unfilled EWS or DG vacancies by a school to next class in subsequent year does not infracts or violate the Right to Education Act or any other legal provision.
“Admitting of EWS/DG students to the extent of at least 25% of the strength of its entry level class is the statutory obligation of every school which falls within Section 2(n)(iv) of the RTE Act. If a School defaults, there is nothing illegal in directing it to make up the deficit in the next higher class in the next year,” Justice C Hari Shankar said.
Title: RECKITT BENCKISER INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED v. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH: ITS SECRETARY & ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 111
The Delhi High Court has upheld the provisions concerning anti-profiteering measure and establishment of National Anti-Profiteering Authority (NAA) under the Central Good and Services Tax Act, 2017 and its Rules, observing that they are in the nature of a beneficial legislation as they promote consumer welfare.
A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma upheld the constitutional validity of Section 171 of the Central Good and Services Tax Act, 2017 and Rules 122, 124, 126, 127, 129, 133 and 134 of Rules of 2017.
Delhi High Court Dismisses PIL To Include Ayurveda, Yoga In Ayushman Bharat PMJAY Scheme
Title: ASHWINI KUMAR UPADHYAY v. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 112
The Delhi High Court has dismissed public interest litigation seeking inclusion of Ayurveda, Yoga and Naturopathy in Union Government's public health insurance scheme Ayushman Bharat Pradhan Mantri Jan Arogya Yojana (PM-JAY).
A division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora rejected the plea filed by BJP leader and Advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay in default due to non-prosecution.
Title: Sharjeel Imam v. State
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 113
The Delhi High Court has directed a trial court here to decide and pronounce judgment by February 17 an application moved by Sharjeel Imam seeking statutory bail for having undergone one half of the maximum seven years punishment in a UAPA and sedition case.
The case relates to the alleged inflammatory speeches made by him in Aligarh Muslim University and Jamia area in the national capital against the Citizenship Amendment Act.
Title: R K KAPOOR, ADVOCATE v. THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI & ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 114
The Delhi High Court has said that the working strength in the Delhi Judicial Service shall be “nearly at par with the sanctioned strength” by the end of this year.
A division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora disposed of a PIL filed by Advocate RK Kapoor in 2014 seeking advertising of all the vacancies which were existing then in the lower judiciary.
Delhi High Court Orders Commencement Of Operation Of 'Lokshahi Marathi' News Channel
Title: ZORA TRADERS LIMITED & ORS v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 115
The Delhi High Court has directed the Union Government to permit the proprietors of “Lokshahi Marathi” to commence the operation of the news channel forthwith.
Justice Subramonium Prasad observed that the proprietors had taken steps to rectify the defects pointed out by the Union Government and thus, are entitled to run the channel.
Title: KAMAL KANT AND COMPANY LLP v. RAASHEE FRAGRANCES INDIA PVT LTD
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 116
The Delhi High Court has restrained a manufacturer from using “Raashee” mark in respect of pan masala, mouth freshners and other chewing tobacco products in a trademark infringement suit filed by “Rajshree” Pan Masala.
Justice Prathiba M Singh said that the manufacturer will, however, be free to use the two proposed marks, मेरी राशी and My Raashee, so long as they are used in a manner that the words 'My' or 'मेरी' are of the same font, colour and size as the word 'Raashee'.
Title: Mohammad Hamim & Anr. v. Facebook India Online Services Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 117
The Delhi High Court has refused to pass an order directing the Union Government to restrain Facebook India from allegedly promoting “hateful and harmful content” against the Rohingya community on the social media platform.
A division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora said that the suggestion that there should be prior censorship of any publication on Rohingyas on Facebook is an example of “a treatment that is worse than the disease.”
Title: KASHMIR HARVARD EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTE v. PRESIDENT AND FELLOWS OF HARVARD COLLEGE
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 118
The Delhi High Court has upheld an arbitral award directing transfer of a domain name registered by Kashmir Harvard Educational Institute based in Srinagar to the President and Fellows of Harvard College in the United States of America.
Justice Prateek Jalan dismissed with Rs. 50,000 costs the plea moved by the Kashmir based educational institution against the arbitral award passed on March 04, 2023, under the “.IN Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy” (IDNDRP).
Title: X v. Y
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 119
The Delhi High Court has upheld a family court order which rejected a husband's plea to direct the wife and the child to give their blood samples for conducting a paternity test in order to establish her “adulterous conduct” and the minor being the “pawn.”
A division bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Amit Bansal dismissed the husband's appeal and said that whether the wife was involved in an adulterous relationship, as alleged, is an aspect that will have to go to trial.
Title: DHARAM NARAYAN GAUTAM v. STATE THROUGH ECONOMIC OFFENCES WING & ANR.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 120
The Delhi High Court recently ordered action to be taken against erring jail officers of Tihar Jail over illegal detention of a man, despite bail and release order issued in his favour on January 20, based on an “expired production warrant” issued against him last year in an out-station case.
A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Manoj Jain directed that the man be released from jail forthwith, observing that he was kept in illegal detention based on a production warrant in a case pending in a court in Uttar Pradesh's Gautam Buddha Nagar which expired last year.
Frame Guidelines On Living Organ Or Tissue Donations By Minors: Delhi High Court To Centre
Title: SIYA OMAR THROUGH HER MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN PRIYANKA GUPTA & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE & ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 121
The Delhi High Court has directed the Union Government to frame guidelines for reference of the appropriate authority and the State Governments while considering an application for living organ or tissue donations by minors.
Justice Subramonium Prasad ordered that the guidelines under Rule 5(3)(g) of the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Rules, 2014, be framed within two months.
Title: AMIT KUMAR & ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 122
The Delhi High Court has observed that it is high time that the faculty as well as staff members of Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) make conscious efforts to counsel and encourage students and to make them understand that though scoring good marks and performing best is important but it is not the most important thing in life.
Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar emphasised that the varsity's faculty must motivate the students that one can certainly give his or her best without succumbing to the pressures or stress of performing better.
Title: MR MAHENDER KUMAR KHANDELWAL v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT & ANR.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 123
The Delhi High Court has observed that where the investigation under Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002, extends beyond 365 days and does not result in any proceedings relating to any offence, the seizure of a property will lapse and must be returned to the person from whom it was so seized.
“The continuation of such seizure beyond 365 days, in absence of the pendency of any proceedings relating to any offence under this Act before a court or under the corresponding law of any other country before the competent court of criminal jurisdiction outside India, shall be confiscatory in nature, without authority of law and, therefore, violative of Article 300A of the Constitution of India,” Justice Navin Chawla ruled.
Title: Yasin Malik v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 124
The Delhi High Court has directed the Tihar Jail Superintendent to ensure that medical treatment is duly provided in the jail hospital to Kashmiri separatist leader Yasin Malik, convicted in a terror funding case.
Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta passed the order in a plea moved by Yasin Malik seeking appropriate directions upon the Union Government and jail authorities to refer him for “necessary medical treatment” to AIIMS or any other hospital physically as he is suffering from cardiac and kidney-related ailments.
Title: CITIZENS WHISTLE BLOWER FORUM v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 125
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a plea seeking an in-depth, thorough and time bound investigation by a Special Investigation Team (SIT) into alleged illegalities, violations and siphoning of funds by the promoters of Indiabulls Housing Finance Limited (IBHFL) and its subsidiaries.
A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna observed that necessary investigation has already been carried out by National Housing Bank (NHB) and the Union Ministry of Corporate Affairs is in the process of conducting further probe in the matter.
Title: BAL KISHAN GUPTA v. DDA
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 126
The Delhi High Court has recently observed that the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) cannot carry out any demolition on its own whims and fancies and must issue show cause notice and adjudicate the reply or objections raised by a party before initiating such action.
“The respondent (DDA), being the State, is required to follow principles of natural justice and cannot carry out any demolition on its own whims and fancies. Before initiating the process, it is required to issue a show cause notice, call for reply, adjudicate the reply/objections and thereafter carry out any demolition,” Justice Jasmeet Singh held.
Title: CPIO CBI v. Sanjiv Chaturvedi
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 127
Rejecting the argument that the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) is exempted from provisions of Right to Information Act, 2005, the Delhi High Court has said that the probe agency must provide information on corruption and human rights violations, except in investigations which are sensitive in nature.
Justice Subramonium Prasad said that even though CBI's name is mentioned in the Second Schedule to the RTI Act, it does not mean that the entire enactment is not applicable to the agency.
Title: X v. Y
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 128
Observing that an “adulterous spouse” is not equivalent to an “incompetent parent,” the Delhi High Court has said that the points for consideration in divorce proceedings and custody matters may be co-related but they are always “mutually exclusive.”
A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna said that an adulterous relationship or extramarital affair of either spouse cannot be the sole determining factor to deny custody of a child, unless it is proved that such relationship is pernicious or detrimental to the minor's welfare.
Title: MICHAL BENSON NWAOGU @ CHUNA BENSON v. STATE
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 129
The Delhi High Court has underscored the need of speedy disposal of cases against foreign nationals who are detained in detention centres despite being admitted to bail, thereby restricting their liberty due to pendency of cases for long period.
Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta said that the trial courts in the national capital must deal with criminal cases involving foreigners expeditiously, in the interest of equity and fair play, to ensure that their liberty is not restricted or curtailed due to delay in the conclusion of trials.
Title: A v. B
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 130
While upholding divorce of a couple on the ground of cruelty by wife, the Delhi High Court has observed that pressurising the husband to fulfil “distant and whimsical dreams” not within his financial reach may create a sense of “persistent dissatisfaction” which would be sufficient mental strain to drain the contentment and tranquillity out of any married life.
A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna observed that a wife should not be a constant reminder of one's financial limitations and said that one must tread carefully between the needs, wants and desires.
Title: RAVI KUMAR v. ALL INDIA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 131
The Delhi High Court has observed that an authority asking for OBC-Non Creamy Layer (NCL) certificate should keep the cut-off date of its issuance in line with a particular financial year, as any deviation not only creates confusion and uncertainty but also deprives deserving candidates of reservation benefit.
Title: X v. Y
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 132
The Delhi High Court has ruled that a person cannot be sent to jail for more than three months, over non-payment of arrears of maintenance to the spouse, in the subsequent execution petitions filed for recovery of maintenance which may accrue from time to time under the same order.
A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna analyzed Section 58 (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and ruled that the total period in civil prison in execution of a decree in the same suit cannot exceed three months.
Case Title: Naman Gupta Versus Commissioner Of Customs Airport And General
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 133
The Delhi High Court has held that as a customs broker, the petitioner cannot be held liable because exporters were not traceable after the issuance of 'Let Export Orders' and the export of the goods out of the country.
Case Title: Shri Balaji Enterprises & Ors vs Reserve Bank Of India & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 134
The Delhi High Court bench comprising Justice Subramonium Prasad held that the aggrieved party should avail the alternate remedy available under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before approaching the court under Article 226 unless there are extraordinary or exceptional circumstances.
Further, the bench held that the remedy available to a party under Article 226 is not absolute and is at the discretion of the High Court.