Citations 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 756 to 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 783NOMINAL INDEXSUBLIME SOFTWARE LTD. v. UNION OF INDIA 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 756 HARISH RANA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 757 RAJAN TEWARI v. DURGESH KUMAR PATHAK & ANR 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 758 CAPTAIN DEEPAK KUMAR v. COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA AND ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 759 Delhi Medical Association &...
Citations 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 756 to 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 783
NOMINAL INDEX
SUBLIME SOFTWARE LTD. v. UNION OF INDIA 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 756
HARISH RANA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 757
RAJAN TEWARI v. DURGESH KUMAR PATHAK & ANR 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 758
CAPTAIN DEEPAK KUMAR v. COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA AND ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 759
Delhi Medical Association & Anr. vs. Govt NCT of Delhi & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 760
CONFEDERATION OF NGOS & ANR. V/s UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 761
Ajay Gautam v. DCPCR & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 762
COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. PRADEEP AGGARWAL 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 763
Growth Techno Projects Limited Vs Ishwar Industries Limited 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 764
GUJARAT OPERATIONAL CREDITORS ASSOCIATION v. NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 765
Amit Sharma vs. Sugandha Sharma 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 766
DHARAMPAL SATYAPAL LIMITED AND ANR v. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 767
BANTU v. STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 768
VINOD v. STATE N.C.T. OF DELHI 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 769
SHABNAM BURNEY v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 770
Rajat Sharma v. X Corp & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 771
Deepa Chawla Vs Raheja Developers Ltd 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 772
Mukesh Khurana Vs Rahul Chaudhary 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 773
BIBHAV KUMAR v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 774
New Okhla Industrial Development Authority Versus Union Of India & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 775
PCIT Versus Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 776
Lily Packers Private Limited Vs Vaishnavi Vijay Umak and connected matters 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 777
GJ (JV) Comprising of M/S Godara Construction Company M/S Jandu Construction India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union Of India 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 778
Kamla Vohra Versus Sales Tax Officer 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 779
Murari Lal Agarwal Vs Kmc Construction Limited & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 780
M/S Dhawan Box Sheet Containers Pvt Ltd Vs M/S Sel Manufacturing Co Ltd 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 781
Nafees Ahmed Vs Delhi Tourism And Transportation Development Corporation Ltd 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 782
BPT Infra Project Pvt. Ltd. Vs Indraprastha Ice And Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 783
Title: SUBLIME SOFTWARE LTD. v. UNION OF INDIA
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 756
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a plea against the blocking of open-source messaging application “Briar” by the Union Government in Jammu and Kashmir over threat to national security and sovereignty.
Justice Subramonium Prasad rejected the plea moved by Sublime Software Limited which developed the app challenging the Union Government's blocking order.
Title: HARISH RANA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 757
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a plea moved by a 30 years old man seeking constitution of a Medical Board to examine his health condition for administration of passive euthanasia.
Justice Subramonium Prasad rejected the plea moved by the man who suffered head injuries after falling from the fourth floor of his paying guest house and has been confined to his bed since 2013 due to diffuse axonal injury with Permanent Vegetative state, Quadriplegia with 100% disability.
Title: RAJAN TEWARI v. DURGESH KUMAR PATHAK & ANR
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 758
The Delhi High Court has refused to reject a plea challenging the election of Aam Aadmi Party leader Durgesh Kumar Pathak in the Assembly by-elections of 2022.
Pathak was declared as a winner from Rajinder Nagar constituency by defeating his nearest rival by a margin of 11,468 votes.
Delhi High Court Dismisses Plea Alleging 'Cartelization' In Air India-Vistara Merger
Title: CAPTAIN DEEPAK KUMAR v. COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 759
The Delhi High Court has recently dismissed a plea against the merger of Vistara Airlines and Air India Limited over allegations of cartelization and bid rigging.
Justice Sanjeev Narula rejected the plea moved by former Air India Pilot, Captain Deepak Kumar, observing that the allegations are unsubstantiated and not supported by any evidence.
Case title: Delhi Medical Association & Anr. vs. Govt NCT of Delhi & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 760
The Delhi High Court has directed the Directorate General of Health Services, Delhi Fire Service and Delhi Development Authority to form a Joint Committee and immediately inspect the private nursing homes to demine whether they are following fire safety norms or not.
Title: CONFEDERATION OF NGOS & ANR. V/s UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 761
The Delhi High Court has rejected a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking action against Dalai Lama allegedly molesting a boy child by kissing on his lips in February last year.
A division bench comprising of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela took judicial notice of the fact that Dalai Lama has expressed his apology to those who have been offended by his action.
Title: Ajay Gautam v. DCPCR & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 762
The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi Government and the Delhi Police to ensure that publicity is given to the child helpline number 1098 to deal with incidents of child begging in the national capital.
A division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela disposed of a PIL filed by Ajay Gautam seeking requisite steps to eradicate the problem of child beggary and related problems in and around Delhi.
Contempt: Delhi High Court Sentences Man To 'Sit In Court Till Rising', Imposes ₹1 Lakh Fine
Title: COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. PRADEEP AGGARWAL
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 763
Holding a man guilty of contempt for filing a writ petition for “personal gain”, the Delhi High Court has sentenced him “remain present in the Court till its rising”.
A division bench of Justice Prathiba M Singh and Justice Amit Sharma ordered the sentencing considering the man's medical condition, age and the fact that he expressed remorse and apologised for his conduct.
Case Title: Growth Techno Projects Limited Vs Ishwar Industries Limited
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 764
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh has held the time period starting from the filing of the petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act till the amendment to the Arbitration Act in 2015, stands excluded from the counting of the limitation period for the enforcement of the arbitral award.
Title: GUJARAT OPERATIONAL CREDITORS ASSOCIATION v. NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL & ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 765
The Delhi High Court has requested the Chairperson of National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) to examine the viability of recording of proceedings of National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) benches across the country as well as the former.
Case title: Amit Sharma vs. Sugandha Sharma
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 766
The Delhi High Court has observed that in custody matters, a parent without the custody of their child is entitled to visitation rights so as to maintain the bond with their child. The Court stated that joint parenting is the norm and emphasised that the best interest of the child needs to be taken into consideration while determining custody.
Delhi High Court Upholds FSSAI Regulation To Enhance Statutory Warning Size On Pan Masala Packages
Title: DHARAMPAL SATYAPAL LIMITED AND ANR v. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 767
The Delhi High Court has upheld the Regulation issued by Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) in October 2022 enhancing the size of statutory warning on pan masala packages from 3mm to 50% of front-of-pack of the label.
A division bench comprising of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora dismissed the plea filed by Dharampal Satyapal Limited, licensed manufacturer of Pan Masala brands namely, Rajnigandha, Tansen, and Mastaba.
Title: BANTU v. STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 768
The Delhi High Court has observed that the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which replaced the British-era Code of Criminal Procedure, heralds a transformative era in the criminal justice.
Title: VINOD v. STATE N.C.T. OF DELHI
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 769
The Delhi High Court has directed all the police stations in the national capital to ensure that there shall be no waiting period for 24 hours to start inquiry or investigation in cases of missing children.
Title: SHABNAM BURNEY v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 770
The Delhi High Court has directed the Vice Chairman of Delhi Development Authority (DDA) to remove all the encroachments and illegal construction on the Yamuna river bank, river bed and drains flowing into the river.
Title: Rajat Sharma v. X Corp & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 771
The Delhi High Court has directed Congress leaders Ragini Nayak, Jairam Ramesh and Pawan Khera to immediately delete “defamatory tweets” against senior journalist Rajat Sharma latest by 7 PM today, in compliance of an interim order passed on June 14.
Arbitration Clauses Require Explicit Reference In Subsequent Agreements: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Deepa Chawla Vs Raheja Developers Ltd
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 772
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh has held that for an arbitration clause to be enforceable in subsequent agreements, it must be explicitly referenced within those agreements.
Arbitration Clause In Lease Agreement Invalidated By Subsequent Verbal Agreement: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Mukesh Khurana Vs Rahul Chaudhary
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 773
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Manoj Jain has held that the arbitration clause in a lease agreement ceases to exist if the lease terminates and a new verbal tenancy agreement is established.
Swati Maliwal Assault Case: Delhi High Court Denies Bail To Accused Bibhav Kumar
Title: SH. BIBHAV KUMAR v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 774
The Delhi High Court has denied bail to Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal's close aide Bhibhav Kumar in the alleged Swati Maliwal assault case.
Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta rejected Kumar's bail plea, observing that though he happens to be only designated as a personal secretary to the Chief Minister but he yields considerable influence.
Case Title: New Okhla Industrial Development Authority Versus Union Of India & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 775
The Delhi High Court has held that the loans and advances extended by the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA) are not commercial activities and are eligible for exemption under Section 10(46) of the Income Tax Act.
TPO Lacks Jurisdiction To Question Commercial Expediency Or Genuineness Of Need: Delhi High Court
Case Title: PCIT Versus Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 776
The Delhi High Court has held that the statutory authority conferred upon the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) can only extend to an examination of the appropriateness of the method adopted for the purposes of determining arm's length pricing (ALP) or evaluating the enlistment of comparables. However, the TPO would neither be justified nor could it be countenanced to have the jurisdiction to question commercial expediency or genuineness of need.
Disputes Related To Lock-In Periods In Employment Contracts Are Arbitrable: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Lily Packers Private Limited Vs Vaishnavi Vijay Umak and connected matters
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 777
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh has held that disputes relating to lock-in periods that apply during the subsistence of employment contracts are arbitrable under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Case Title: GJ (JV) Comprising of M/S Godara Construction Company M/S Jandu Construction India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union Of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 778
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Prateek Jalan has held that panel comprising of serving or retired officers of Railways not only restricted the party's choice but also compelled it to choose its nominee from amongst four names suggested by the Railways.
Case Title: Kamla Vohra Versus Sales Tax Officer
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 779
The Delhi High Court has held that the uploading of notices by the GST department under the heading 'additional notices' amounts to sufficient service.
Case Title: Murari Lal Agarwal Vs Kmc Construction Limited & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 780
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Prateek Jalan has held that in a 'two-contract case', a specific reference to the arbitration clause in an earlier contract is necessary for its incorporation into the main contract between the parties.
A 'two-contract case' refers to a situation where there are two separate contracts involved and the parties seek to incorporate terms, including an arbitration clause, from one contract into another.
Case Title: M/S Dhawan Box Sheet Containers Pvt Ltd Vs M/S Sel Manufacturing Co Ltd
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 781
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Prateek Jalan has held that when parties engage in actions based on invoices containing arbitration clauses, demonstrating mutual acceptance, an arbitration agreement may be inferred directly from those invoices.
Case Title: Nafees Ahmed Vs Delhi Tourism And Transportation Development Corporation Ltd
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 782
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar has held that coercion, or its absence in a dispute is a complex question, purely of fact, which has necessarily to be examined by the arbitral tribunal. The bench held that with the introduction of sub-Section 6(A) in Section 11, the jurisdiction of the referral court is now circumscribed.
Case Title: BPT Infra Project Pvt. Ltd. Vs Indraprastha Ice And Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 783
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar has held that while exercising power under Section 27(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to grant a request to summon a witness, the arbitrator is not required to offer detailed reasons when granting such a request.