Citations 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 537 to 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 568NOMINAL INDEXDR SOHAIL MALIK v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 537 Harkirat Singh Sodhi v. Oram Foods Pvt Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 538 RAJNEESH BHASKAR GUPTA versus Reserve Bank of India & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 539 Aswini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 540 Manish Sisodia v....
Citations 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 537 to 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 568
NOMINAL INDEX
DR SOHAIL MALIK v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 537
Harkirat Singh Sodhi v. Oram Foods Pvt Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 538
RAJNEESH BHASKAR GUPTA versus Reserve Bank of India & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 539
Aswini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 540
Manish Sisodia v. Enforcement Directorate 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 541
NOKIA TECHNOLOGIES OY v. GUANGDONG OPPO MOBILE TELECOMMUNICATIONS CORP LTD & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 542
BUDHI SINGH v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI and other connected matters 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 543
Viney Chaudhary v. Union Of India & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 544
SUDHIR GUPTA v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 545
DR. PRAMOD BATRA v. MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 546
Social Jurist, A Civil Rights Group v. Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 547
RAJINDER NISCHAL v. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 548
EX CT/GD OM PARKASH v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 549
MAMTA RANI v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 550
SAP SE vs Swiss Auto Products and Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 551
TV 18 BROADCAST LIMITED v. BENNETT, COLEMAN AND COMPANY LIMITED 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 552
ANTOSH v. STATE 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 553
NEETU SINGH v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 554
Microsoft Corporation vs Zoai Founder 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 555
PEMBROKE AIRCRAFT LEASING 11 LIMITED Vs. DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF CIVIL AVIATION & ORS. And other connected matters 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 556
Sashi Kumar NagarJi & Ors. V. M/S Magnifico Minerals Pvt Ltd & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 557
Chaalak Shakti & Ors. v. GNCTD & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 558
COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 559
MOHD. AMAAN MALIK v. State of NCT Delhi 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 560
SHRI CHARANJEET SINGH & ANR. v. SHRI HARVINDER SINGH & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 561
Rakesh Agrawal vs National Highway Authority of India and Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 562
M/s Wave Geo-Services Pvt Ltd vs M/s Devi Engineering and Construction Pvt Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 563
KAMDHENU LTD v. THE REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 564
INOX AIR PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED v. MR. ARUN RATHI 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 565
M/s Abhijeet Angul Sambhalpur Toll Road Limited v. NHAI 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 566
AMBUJ HOTELS & REAL ESTATE PVT. LTD. v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION and other connected matters 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 567
PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX v. MSECF and Anr, W.P.(C) 13754 of 2019 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 568
Title: DR SOHAIL MALIK v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 537
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the scope of Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 or PoSH Act is not limited to cases where a woman employee is sexually harassed by another employee working in her own office or department but also extends to cases where the delinquent employee is employed elsewhere.
Analyzing the statute and its objectives, a vacation bench of Justice C Hari Shankar and Justice Manoj Jain observed:
“Each and every one of these objectives is, conspicuously, “harasser-neutral”. In an era in which – one has to say it, as one sees it every day even in the Court – women are equalling, if not outnumbering, men in professional achievements, there can be no compromise on any of these objectives.”
Case Title: Harkirat Singh Sodhi v. Oram Foods Pvt Ltd
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 538
The Delhi High Court has held that 2019 Amendment to Section 29A of the A&C Act is procedural in nature and would apply to all arbitrations that were pending on the date of its coming into force. By way of the amendment, the time limit of 12 months for rendering an award was to be calculated from the date of the completion of proceedings and not from the date when the arbitrator entered reference as provided under the unamended Section.
The bench of Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani extended the time period for rendering an arbitration award after considering the peculiar facts of the cases including the death of two arbitrators, recusal by the third arbitrator and the delay caused by the Covid-19 pandemic.
Title: RAJNEESH BHASKAR GUPTA versus Reserve Bank of India & Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 539
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation challenging the Reserve Bank of India's decision to withdraw Rs 2,000 notes from circulation.
A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad rejected the plea moved by advocate Rajneesh Bhaskar Gupta. The court observed that the RBI was well within its power to issue the Notification in question which is only a part of the “currency management system.”
Title: Aswini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 540
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation seeking directions on the Delhi Police to ask the complainants if they are willing to undergo scientific tests like Narco Analysis and Brain Mapping during the investigation to prove the allegations.
A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad rejected the plea moved by advocate and BJP leader Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay.
Dismissing the plea, the bench said that it is well settled that courts do not interfere with the investigation as investigation is purely the domain of investigating agency.
Delhi High Court Denies Bail To Manish Sisodia In Money Laundering Case
Title: Manish Sisodia v. Enforcement Directorate
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 541
The Delhi High Court has denied bail to Aam Aadmi Party leader and Delhi’s former Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia in the money laundering case related to the implementation of previous liquor policy in national capital.
Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma also denied bail to co-accused persons Hyderabad businessman Abhishek Boinpally, AAP’s communications incharge Vijay Nair and General Manager of Pernod Ricard India Benoy Babu.
Title: NOKIA TECHNOLOGIES OY v. GUANGDONG OPPO MOBILE TELECOMMUNICATIONS CORP LTD & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 542
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the high courts have the power to pass “pro-tem security deposit” order where an implementer fails to make payments to a Standard Essential Patent (SEP) holder and continues to derive benefit by using its technology.
A pro-tem order is where the court, as a temporary arrangement, directs an implementer to make payments as security to safeguard the interests of a Standard Essential Patent holder, till the dispute between the parties is finally decided.
Title: BUDHI SINGH v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI and other connected matters
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 543
The Delhi High Court has ruled that where a convict’s appeal against the conviction is pending before the Supreme Court, a direction to grant furlough under Delhi Prison Rules has to be necessarily taken from the Apex Court.
Rules 1199 and 1200 of the Delhi Prison Rules deal with the grant of parole and furlough to prisoners. Note 2 to Rule 1224 states that, "if an appeal of a convict is pending before the High Court or the period for filing an appeal before the High Court has not expired, furlough will not be granted and it would be open to the convict to seek appropriate directions from the Court."
Case Title: Viney Chaudhary v. Union Of India & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 544
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition challenging the decision to give higher priority to the wards of ex-servicemen than the wards of serving personnel under the Army quota of 5% for admission to various Colleges
According to the 2018 Union Government order, Priority VI is assigned to Wards of Ex-Servicemen and Priority VIII to Wards of Serving Personnel. Challenging the priority, the husband of a Lieutenant Colonel in the Indian Army argued that there is no intelligible differentia for placing the wards of serving personnel in a category below the wards of ex-servicemen.
Title: SUDHIR GUPTA v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 545
The Delhi High Court recently ordered that the football and hockey fields at the Siri Fort Sports Complex having natural grass be not destroyed or altered to artificial turf.
“Siri Fort Sports Complex (SFSC) lies in the heart of South Delhi and the adjoining greenery needs to be protected at all cost, as the entire area is a green lung for the city. A park or a green area in the midst of a thickly populated residential area or commercial area is of a far greater value than a forest removed kilometres away from a human habitation,” Justice Najmi Waziri said in a judgement passed on June 30.
Title: DR. PRAMOD BATRA v. MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA & ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 546
Observing that baseless targeting of doctors is bound to “seriously prejudice” public interest, the Delhi High Court has said that striking off name of such a doctor from the Indian Medical Register “partakes character of a civil death” in view of the individual’s professional career.
“While it is true that a medical professional is expected to possess a certain minimum standard of competence, failing which he has no justification for dispensing medical treatment, and that conduct which fall short of even that minimum medical standard, or display callous negligence to the welfare of a patient, has to be dealt with severely, it is equally true that the scalpel cannot be wielded by a shaking hand. Baseless targeting of doctors, unmindful of the consequences, is bound, in the ultimate eventuate, to seriously prejudice public interest,” Justice C Hari Shankar added.
Title: Social Jurist, A Civil Rights Group v. Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 547
The Delhi High Court has rejected as not maintainable a public interest litigation seeking expeditious finalization of the Delhi School Education (Amendment) Bill, 2015 which proposes to prohibit the screening procedure for admissions in nursery or pre-primary level in schools.
“In the considered opinion of this Court, even though the Bill has been passed by the House, it is always open to the Governor to agree or to send the Bill back to the House and this Court ought not to pass a writ of mandamus directing the Governor to act by passing a writ,” a division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad said.
Title: RAJINDER NISCHAL v. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY & ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 548
Calling it a “publicity interest litigation”, the Delhi High Court has dismissed a plea challenging the method of empanelment of advocates to represent the Union Government.
A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad rejected the public interest litigation moved by Advocate Rajinder Nischal.
It was the lawyer’s case that the size of the panel to represent the Government of India is not fixed and that the Union Government does not invite applications for appointment or renewal of the panel.
Title: EX CT/GD OM PARKASH v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 549
Observing that an officer of a force cannot be permitted to rebel the decisions of the competent authority, the Delhi High Court has upheld the dismissal of a former CRPF constable who was found a habitual offender for consuming liquor during duty hours and for misbehaving with a Sub-Inspector by directing a magazine-loaded carbine towards him in drunken state.
Observing that such an officer of the Force is expected to deal with it with patience and mind, a division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna said:
“By pleading that since petitioner‟s leave was rejected, under tension and depression, he consumed liquor; petitioner has admitted before this Court that he is unable to handle the strain or stress, which is least expected from an officer of the Force. It is not only the medical condition wherein petitioner is found heavily drunk, the situation worsened with petitioner‟s pointing loaded carbine to another officer of the Force, which is a blunder on his part. The misconduct committed by the petitioner leaves no scope for leniency towards him.”
Traffic Authorities Best Judges On Traffic Regulation; Courts Do Not Run Country: Delhi High Court
Title: MAMTA RANI v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 550
The Delhi High Court has observed that the traffic authorities are the best judges to decide on the issue of traffic regulation in the national capital and that it cannot, under the writ jurisdiction, sit over their decisions.
“The traffic authorities are the best judges to decide the issue of regulation of traffic in the city and this Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not inclined to sit over as an Appellate Authority over the decisions taken by the traffic authorities for regulating the movement of traffic in the city,” a division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad said.
Case Title: SAP SE vs Swiss Auto Products and Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 551
The Delhi High Court has referred to the larger bench the issue of whether the rules dealing with procedural aspects, including those relating to the filing of evidence introduced by the Trademarks Rules, 2017, would apply retrospectively to proceedings initiated under the Trademarks Rules, 2002.
The bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula made the larger bench reference while dealing with the issue if the Registrar of Trademarks had rightly employed the 2002 Rules qua filing of evidence in the proceedings relating to the trademark application and opposition, while the Rules were in force.
Title: TV 18 BROADCAST LIMITED v. BENNETT, COLEMAN AND COMPANY LIMITED
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 552
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday observed that prima facie, there is no likelihood of confusion between News 18’s “Bhaiyaji Kahin” and Times Now Navbharat’s “Bhaiya Ji Superhit” television shows.
Justice Amit Bansal dismissed the interim injunction application moved by TV 18 Broadcast Limited, which is part of the Network18 group, in its suit against Bennett Coleman and Company Limited alleging infringement of its trademark “Bhaiyaji Kahin” which is the name of its Hindi news show.
Title: ANTOSH v. STATE
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 553
Highlighting the importance of a fair trial, the Delhi High Court has observed that upholding the fundamental right of an accused to effective legal assistance cannot mean ineffective hearings or lack of opportunities to the prosecution.
“Prosecuting offenders to the full extent as law describes is a delicate task and cannot be performed without being awarded effective opportunity to prosecute and assist the Court to ensure smooth functioning of criminal justice system,” Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said.
Case Title: NEETU SINGH v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 554
The Delhi High Court recently issued a slew of directions for implementing the project of uploading names and other details of proclaimed offenders and proclaimed persons on an online user-friendly portal.
Justice Talwant Singh, who retired last month, in the order dated May 25 directed the National Informatics Centre (NIC) to develop the necessary software and provide requisite infrastructure, web space and search facilities for the data, for implementing the project.
Case Title: Microsoft Corporation vs Zoai Founder
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 555
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the inclusion of the arbitrator’s name in the “Hall of Fame” of a website created by him, based upon the fact that he had denied the maximum number of complaints under the “.IN Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy” (INDRP), gives rise to a justifiable apprehension as to his neutrality.
The court was dealing with a petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), challenging the arbitral award passed by the Arbitrator under INDRP while adjudicating the claim for transfer of a disputed domain name.
Title: PEMBROKE AIRCRAFT LEASING 11 LIMITED Vs. DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF CIVIL AVIATION & ORS. And other connected matters
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 556
The Delhi High Court has permitted various lessors to carry out inspection and interim maintenance tasks of their aircrafts, which are currently on lease with crisis-hit Go First airline, twice a month until final disposal of their pleas to de-register their planes from the airline.
In the judgment on the applications moved by the lessors seeking interim relief in their petitions, Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju said: “There can also be no denial of the fact that the Aircrafts of the Petitioners are extremely valuable and highly sophisticated equipment and require regular maintenance for their preservation.
Case Title- Sashi Kumar NagarJi & Ors. V. M/S Magnifico Minerals Pvt Ltd & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 557
Observing that the wanton arraignment of directors in the cheque dishonour cases, without reference to their role, amounts to an abuse of the salutary process of criminal law, the Delhi High Court has quashed the summoning orders against the directors of a company in a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani said it appears to have become common for complainants to arraign all and sundry directors of a company as accused in a criminal complaint in relation to dishonour of cheques, with the evident intention of pressurising and arm-twisting a company into paying-up a claimed debt.
Title: Chaalak Shakti & Ors. v. GNCTD & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 558
The Delhi High Court has upheld the validity of the Rules prescribing colour and description of uniform for drivers of auto rickshaws and taxis in the national capital, observing that there is no ambiguity in the same.
A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad upheld the validity of Rule 7 of the Delhi Motor Vehicle Rules, 1993, which prescribes that a auto rickshaw driver shall wear a khaki uniform with a name plate.
Establish Three Proposed Juvenile Justice Boards Within Two Years: High Court To Delhi Govt
Title: COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 559
The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi Government to establish the three Juvenile Justice Boards proposed by it in the national capital within a period of two years.
Taking note of a recent status report filed by the city government in a suo moto case, a division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad observed that Delhi is ready to lay foundation stone to set up an integrated complex for effective implementation of the Juvenile Justice Act comprising of various Juvenile Justice Institutions and statutory bodies for care and protection of children within a single premises.
Case Title: MOHD. AMAAN MALIK v. State of NCT Delhi
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 560
The Delhi High Court has said that a disturbing pattern is emerging where in certain instances, the accused marries the rape victim to evade criminal charges and promptly abandons her once the FIR is quashed or bail is secured.
"Shockingly, numerous cases have come to light where the accused deceitfully enters into a marriage under the guise of willingness, particularly when the victim becomes pregnant as a result of the assault and subsequent DNA testing confirms the accused as the biological father, and even after solemnization of marriage and subsequent immunity from criminal prosecution, the accused heartlessly deserts the victim within a few months," said the court.
Title: SHRI CHARANJEET SINGH & ANR. v. SHRI HARVINDER SINGH & ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 561
It is anathema in this day and age to diminish the autonomous status of a woman by treating her “merely as an adjunct to her husband”, least of all in relation to what the law recognises to be her absolute property, the Delhi High Court observed on Thursday.
Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani allowed an application moved by a wife under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking rejection of a plaint for a decree of permanent injunction to restrain her and her husband from creating any third-party rights in respect of a property situated in city’s Rajouri Garden.
Case Title: Rakesh Agrawal vs National Highway Authority of India and Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 562
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) can enter into contracts for the purpose of collecting fee on behalf of the Central Government under Section 7 of the National Highways Act, 1956.
The court said that the contracts which have been entered into by NHAI for the purpose of performing its functions to collect fee on behalf of the Central Government, cannot be said to be violative of Rule 7 of the National Highways Fees (Determination of Rates and Collection) Rules, 2008.
Case Title: M/s Wave Geo-Services Pvt Ltd vs M/s Devi Engineering and Construction Pvt Ltd
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 563
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the plea that the claimant’s claim cannot stand in the absence of a third entity in the arbitral proceedings, is an aspect touching upon the maintainability of the claim(s) sought to be raised before the Arbitral Tribunal. The court said that the said plea can be urged before a duly constituted Arbitration Tribunal and the same cannot preclude the claimant from seeking or invoking Arbitration in terms of the arbitration agreement executed between the parties.
The bench of Justice Sachin Datta made the observation while hearing a petition filed under Section 11(2) and (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) seeking appointment of a Sole Arbitrator.
Title: KAMDHENU LTD v. THE REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 564
The Delhi High Court has held that when documentary evidence is sufficient for determining the well-known status of a trademark, the filing of evidence by way of affidavit is not mandatory.
Justice Prathiba M. Singh considered the question about the nature of the evidence, and the documents required to be filed by an applicant for determination as a well-known trademark under Section 11 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, read with Rule 124 of the Trade Mark Rules, 2017.
Civil Prisoners Eligible For Remission Under Delhi Prison Rules: Delhi High Court
Case Title: INOX AIR PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED v. MR. ARUN RATHI
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 565
The Delhi High Court has observed that civil prisoners are eligible for grant of ordinary remission under the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018.
“…a plain reading of the aforesaid Rules would show that while providing eligibility for remission in Rule 1175, the expression used is “convicted prisoner”. The expression is inclusive and does not distinguish between a convicted “civil prisoner” and a “criminal prisoner”,” Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri observed.
Case Details: M/s Abhijeet Angul Sambhalpur Toll Road Limited v. NHAI
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 566
The Delhi High Court has held that an order of the arbitral tribunal refusing to entertain additional counter-claims filed without making any application under Section 23 of the Act is not an ‘interim award’, therefore, it cannot be challenged under Section 34 of the Act.
The bench of Justices Najmi Waziri and Sudhir Kumar Jain held that order of the tribunal refusing to entertain additional counter-claims filed without requisite permission/authority of the tribunal is not an interim award as it neither conclusively settle any issue between the parties so to have the res judicate effect nor foreclose the right of the aggrieved party to refile the counter-claims by seeking “authority” or permission on an application under section 23 of the Act.
Title: AMBUJ HOTELS & REAL ESTATE PVT. LTD. v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION and other connected matters
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 567
The Delhi High Court has said that merely because sanction to prosecute a public servant under Prevention of Corruption Act is not granted, does not mean that the allegations of conspiracy or cheating by private accused persons under Indian Penal Code cannot stand trial.
“The matter of sanction qua public servant would have no effect upon allegations of conspiracy and alleged cheating by private accused and the only effect would be Section 120B IPC would now not be used to prosecute private individuals for the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Merely because the sanction is not granted does not mean the findings qua conspiracy/cheating cannot stand trial,” Justice Yogesh Khanna observed.
Case Title: PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX v. MSECF and Anr, W.P.(C) 13754 of 2019
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 568
The Delhi High Court has held that the provisions of MSMED Act, 2006 would not apply to a CA firm appointed as ‘Special Auditor’ under Section 142(2A) of the Income Tax Act (IT Act), 1961.
Justice Prathiba M. Singh held that MSMED Act no applicability in cases of CA firms appointed under Section 142(2A) of the IT Act for the purpose of carrying out special audit as there is no relationship of buyer and seller between the parties. Moreover, the assignment under Section 142(2A) is a statutory assignment and not a contractual relationship between the parties, therefore, despite their registration under the MSMED Act, a special audit firm cannot invoke the provisions of the Act against the IT department qua the amount payable for carrying out such audit.