Citations 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 599 to 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 618NOMINAL INDEXX v. Y 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 599 RUPINDERJIT KAUR v. THE MANAGER, DHANPATMAL VIRMANI SR. SEC. SCHOOL AND ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 600 IDFC First Bank Limited v. Hitachi MGRM Net Limited 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 601 PERNOD RICARD INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 602 MANUDEV DAHIYA...
Citations 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 599 to 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 618
NOMINAL INDEX
X v. Y 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 599
RUPINDERJIT KAUR v. THE MANAGER, DHANPATMAL VIRMANI SR. SEC. SCHOOL AND ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 600
IDFC First Bank Limited v. Hitachi MGRM Net Limited 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 601
PERNOD RICARD INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 602
MANUDEV DAHIYA v. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH DG ITBP 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 603
NHAI v. IRB Pathankot Amritsar Toll Road Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 604
Sterlite Power Transmission Limited v. EPC Solutions LLP 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 605
M/S Goldy Engineering Works Versus Commissioner Of Central Excise 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 606
RXPRISM HEALTH SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR. v. CANVA PTY LTD & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 607
Shrikant Prasad v. Union of India & Ors 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 608
CHAPTER 4 CORP vs DHANPREET SINGH TRADING AS M/S PUNJABI ADDA 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 609
Suman Chadha v. SFIO 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 610
NARESH SHARMA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 611
RAJIV BOOLCHAND JAIN v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 612
NISHANT SINGHAL v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 613
The Commissioner Of Income Tax -4 Versus GE India Business Services Pvt. Ltd. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 614
ALOK KUMAR v. HARSH MANDER & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 615
MAJOR GENERAL M.S. AHLUWALIA v. M/S TEHELKA.COM & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 616
SUJEET AND ANR v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 617
National Highways Authority of India vs GVK Jaipur Expressway Private Limited 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 618
Maintenance Case: Delhi High Court Sets Aside Arrest Warrant Against Man With Bipolar Disorder
Case Title: X v. Y
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 599
Ruling that the provision under Section 105 of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 is mandatory in nature, the Delhi High Court has set aside an arrest warrant against a man, who said he is suffering from Bipolar Disorder, Generalized Anxiety Disorder and Depression.
The warrant had been issued by the court below in an execution petition filed by the man's wife in relation to an order directing him to pay a maintenance of over Rs.1 lakh per month to her and their minor daughter under Domestic Violence Act.
Title: RUPINDERJIT KAUR v. THE MANAGER, DHANPATMAL VIRMANI SR. SEC. SCHOOL AND ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 600
The Delhi High Court has observed that a merit list cannot stay alive for an indefinite period for enforcement and that it does not confer any right of appointment upon the selected candidates.
Justice Chandra Dhari Singh made the observation while dismissing a plea moved by a candidate who was aggrieved of her non-selection and non-confirmation to the post of Trained Graduate Teacher, Maths at Dhanpatmal Virmani Senior Secondary School.
Case Title: IDFC First Bank Limited v. Hitachi MGRM Net Limited
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 601
The Delhi High Court has held that a writ petition against an order of arbitral tribunal rejecting an application under Section 16 of A&C Act is maintainable only in exceptional cases.
Justice Prathiba M. Singh held in view of the Supreme Court judgment in Vidya Drolia, the disputes falling under RDB Act, 1993 would be non-arbitrable as the DRT would have the exclusive jurisdiction to decide these matters, however, the Court would not interfere with the arbitral proceedings unless it is ex-facie clear that the dispute falls under the RBD Act.
Title: PERNOD RICARD INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 602
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a plea moved by French company Pernod Ricard against the Delhi Department of Excise's rejection of its application for L-1 license to sell liquor in the national capital.
Justice Prathiba M Singh rejected the plea due to non-maintainability and said that Pernod Ricard must approach the Appellate Authority under the Excise Act, 2009 to challenge the order passed by the Delhi Government’s excise department on April 13.
Pernod Ricard’s application for liquor license was rejected on the ground that various documents were received from CBI and ED alleging its participation in the alleged liquor policy scam, involving Delhi’s former Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia and various others.
Title: MANUDEV DAHIYA v. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH DG ITBP
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 603
Deprecating the conduct of a Commandant posted in the Indo-Tibetan Border Police for acting with “extreme bias and vindictiveness” towards an Assistant Commandant, the Delhi High Court has said that it will not hesitate to take action against any erring superior officer it such orders are challenged.
Circulating a copy of the judgment to the Director General of Police in all the CAPFs for information and advice, a division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna said:
“Before concluding, we hereby advise all the concerned that while taking action against any subordinate officer/personnel, it has to be borne in mind that no one is above law and if such orders are challenged before the Court, the Court certainly will not hesitate to take action against the erring officer.”
Case Title: NHAI v. IRB Pathankot Amritsar Toll Road Ltd
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 604
The Delhi High Court has held that mere recommendation by Independent Engineer (IE) for Extension of Time (EOT) to the contractor does not necessarily mean the NHAI was responsible for the delays in the completion of the project work.
The division bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Amit Mahajan held that when the agreement between the parties provides for compensation and extension of concession period in favour of the contractor only in the eventuality of a material breach by NHAI, the arbitrator cannot award damages or grant extension of concession period, without first determining the issue of breach of material breach of the agreement by NHAI, simply for the reason that the IE has recommended EoT in favour of the Contractor.
Date: Sterlite Power Transmission Limited v. EPC Solutions LLP
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 605
The Delhi High Court has Court held that the relevant date under the MSMED Act is the date of agreement and additionally the date on which the goods and services were supplied, therefore, a ‘medium’ enterprise can maintain a claim before MSEFC if it was a either a micro or a small enterprise at the relevant time.
Justice Prathiba M. Singh held that any subsequent upgradation of enterprise from ‘micro or small’ to ‘medium’ would not be a bar to the maintenance of its claim before the MSEFC, if it fulfilled the criteria at the relevant time.
Mere Pendency Of An Appeal Would Not Detract From The Excise Duty Refund Demand: Delhi High Court
Case Title: M/S Goldy Engineering Works Versus Commissioner Of Central Excise
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 606
The Delhi High Court has held that the mere pendency of an appeal or an order of stay that may operate would not detract from the obligation of any person claiming a refund to make an application within the period prescribed and computed with reference to the "relevant date".
"We do so observe in light of the indubitable principle that an order of stay that may operate in an appeal does not efface the demand or the obligation of refund that may have sprung into existence. It merely places the enforcement of the order appealed against in abeyance. The order of stay would, in any case, be deemed to have never existed once the appeal comes to be dismissed," the bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Dharmesh Sharma said.
Title: RXPRISM HEALTH SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR. v. CANVA PTY LTD & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 607
The Delhi High Court has restrained Canva, an Australian multi-national graphic design platform, from making available its “Present and Record” feature in India in a patent infringement suit filed by RxPrism Health Systems Private Limited.
Justice Prathiba M Singh also directed Canva to deposit Rs. 50 lakhs with the Registrar General as a security for RxPrism’s claims for past use of the infringing feature in India. This was done considering revenue and sales figures of the users who used the feature in the country at least once till June 30, 2022.
Title: Shrikant Prasad v. Union of India & Ors
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 608
The Delhi High Court refused to entertain a public interest litigation challenging the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (Amendment) Ordinance, 2023 promulgated by the Union Government on May 19.
A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula permitted Advocate Shrikant Prasad to withdraw the plea after noting that challenge to ordinance’s constitutional validity is already pending before the Supreme Court.
Case Title: CHAPTER 4 CORP vs DHANPREET SINGH TRADING AS M/S PUNJABI ADDA
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 609
The Delhi High Court has declared the ‘Supreme’ red-box logo as a ‘well-known’ mark in respect of apparel and clothing, under Section 2(zg) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
Justice Prathiba M. Singh made the declaration in a suit for permanent injunction filed by Charter 4 Corp, seeking protection of its red-box device mark ‘SUPREME’.
The court remarked that the red-box device mark ‘SUPREME’ has acquired a secondary meaning keeping in mind the extent of its usage and therefore, it deserves to be protected.
Case Title: Suman Chadha v. SFIO
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 610
Observing that severity of allegations cannot be a justification for pre-trial incarceration, the Delhi High Court has granted bail to a Director of M/s Parul Polymers Pvt Ltd. in a case under Section 447 of the Companies Act, 2013.
Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani said, “Needless to add, that nothing in this judgment should be taken to detract from the position that economic offences are serious in nature, and the allegations against the petitioner and other co-accused, if proved at the trial, must be met with requisite punishment. However, that punishment must follow conviction, and the severity of the allegations by themselves cannot be justification for pre-trial incarceration.”
Title: NARESH SHARMA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 611
The Delhi High Court has said that the Bar Council of India must frame guidelines for establishing an “ethical code” for “self represented litigants” to save precious judicial time and minimize frivolous litigations.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma added that the ethical grounding will play a crucial role in minimising the flow of frivolous litigation and will reduce the burden of courts.
“This embargo of absence of ethical conduct needs to be addressed by the Bar Council of India, and some guidelines for establishment of ethical code for self-represented litigants need to be framed. This ethical grounding will play a crucial role in minimising the flow of frivolous litigation, and thus reduce the burden of Courts,” the court said.
Title: RAJIV BOOLCHAND JAIN v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 612
The Delhi High Court has said that the Union Government must continue its efforts and remain steadfast in its endeavour to combat substance abuse, "as the it requires sustained attention and a multifaceted approach."
"By doing so, the Government can contribute to the overall betterment of society and protect public health," said a division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula.
Title: NISHANT SINGHAL v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 613
The Delhi High Court has observed that an application for renewal of passport of an individual cannot be denied only on the basis of an apprehension that the earlier passports would have been misused.
“Denial of passport has the effect of seriously impeding the rights of a citizen. The application for passport can be denied only on valid grounds,” Justice Subramonium Prasad said.
Delhi High Court Excludes Comparable On Grounds Of Functional Dissimilarity & Amalgamation
Case Title: The Commissioner Of Income Tax -4 Versus GE India Business Services Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 614
The Delhi High Court has held that the Software Development Services offered by TCS International could not be used as a comparable since the assessee was in the business of Indian Information technology-enabled services (ITES) or business process outsourcing (BPO).
The division bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju has observed that TCS International is in the business of rendering software development services, which, inter alia, include maintenance and updation of software, as per the requirements of the users. In comparison, the respondent/assessee was providing non-development software services, which involved the purchase of software for provisioning services.
Title: ALOK KUMAR v. HARSH MANDER & ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 615
The Delhi High Court has set aside a trial court order directing Delhi Police to register an FIR against Vishwa Hindu Parishad leader Alok Kumar, on a complaint filed by activist Harsh Mander, for allegedly giving a hate speech during a VHP rally in 2019.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed that Mander had not leveled any allegation against Kumar in the complaint which he had lodged with the police.
“The single line averred by respondent no. 1 (Mander) against the petitioner (Kumar) in his complaint filed before the magistrate on the face of it does not constitute any offence, or make out any case against the petitioner,” the court said.
Title: MAJOR GENERAL M.S. AHLUWALIA v. M/S TEHELKA.COM & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 616
The Delhi High Court directed news magazine Tehelka, its former editor-in-chief Tarun Tejpal and two reporters to pay Rs. 2 crores damages to Major General MS Ahluwalia in a defamation suit filed by the latter in 2002.
A story was carried by Tehelka in March 2001 depicting Ahluwalia as an alleged corrupt middleman in the defence deals relating to import of new defence equipments.
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna observed that Ahluwalia’s reputation had suffered as he not only faced lowering of estimation in the eyes of public but his character also got maligned with serious allegations of corruption, which no subsequent refutation can redress or heal.
Title: SUJEET AND ANR v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 617
The Delhi High Court has dismissed the plea moved by wrestlers Antim Panghal and Sujeet Kalkal against the exemption granted to Vinesh Phogat and Bajrang Punia for Asian Games trials.
Justice Subramonium Prasad said that the unanimous decision taken by the ad-hoc Committee to grant exemption to Punia and Phogat and to not expose them to injuries during the trials cannot be said to be arbitrary or perverse.
Case Title: National Highways Authority of India vs GVK Jaipur Expressway Private Limited
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 618
The Delhi High Court has ruled that non-consideration of a clause of the Agreement executed between the parties, cannot be said to be an error made by the arbitral tribunal which is opposed to the fundamental policy of Indian law. The court added that the same also cannot render the arbitral award patently illegal if the view of the Arbitrator is a plausible one.
The bench comprising Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad was dealing with an arbitral award which was challenged on the ground that the Arbitrator had ignored the relevant clause of the Concession Agreement while passing the award.