Citations 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 641 to 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 655NOMINAL INDEXSHABNAM v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS and other connected matter 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 641 J. VINUTHA v. ALL INDIA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES - AIIMS & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 642 SpiceJet Limited vs Kal Airways Pvt Ltd & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 643 MONK ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR. v. GOVERNMENT...
Citations 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 641 to 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 655
NOMINAL INDEX
SHABNAM v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS and other connected matter 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 641
J. VINUTHA v. ALL INDIA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES - AIIMS & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 642
SpiceJet Limited vs Kal Airways Pvt Ltd & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 643
MONK ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR. v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 644
RAVINDER SINGH BHASIN v. KANWALJIT KAUR & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 645
ASHWINI KUMAR UPADHYAY v. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 646
B L Kashyap and Sons Ltd vs Emaar India Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 647
STATE (NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY) v. MOHD YASIN MALIK 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 648
VIVEKANANDA INSTITUTE OF PROFESSIONAL STUDIES v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 649
TEJASWI CHHATWAL & ORS. v. DR.B.R. AMBEDKAR UNIVERSITY DELHI AND ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 650
WHITEHAT EDUCATION TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED v. VINAY KUMAR SINGH 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 651
MOHD. YASIN PATEL ALIAS FALAHI v. STATE 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 652
PCIT Versus Maharani Enterprises 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 653
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd vs Director of Legal Metrology & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 654
MANMOHAN SINGH @ MONU v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 655
Title: SHABNAM v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS and other connected matter
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 641
The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi Government to conduct a survey of all the pending applications for ration cards and decide if the persons will be entitled to receive the food security allowance.
Justice Subramonium Prasad directed the Delhi Government to complete the exercise “as expeditiously as possible” and sought a status report on the same.
“The State Government is, therefore, directed to conduct the survey of all pending applications to see as to whether they would be entitled to receive the allowance under Section 8 of the Food Security Act,” the court said.
Title: J. VINUTHA v. ALL INDIA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES - AIIMS & ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 642
The Delhi High Court has directed AIIMS to permit a candidate, whose OBC certificate was initially rejected on the ground that it was not as per the prescribed format and later because the re-submission was beyond the cut off date, to appear in second stage interview for the post of senior resident doctor.
Granting interim relief to the candidate who approached the court challenging the rejection of her candidature under OBC category during the selection process, Justice Chandra Dhari Singh said:
“Prima facie, this Court finds force in the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner that the candidature of the petitioner for the Reserved Category post may not be rejected on the sole ground that the Caste Certificate of the petitioner was not in accordance with the prescribed format, especially when the same was issued by an authorised and competent authority.”
Case Title: SpiceJet Limited vs Kal Airways Pvt Ltd & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 643
The Delhi High Court has upheld the 2018 arbitral award passed in favour of Kalanithi Maran, former promoter of SpiceJet, and his firm Kal Airways Pvt Ltd, in a share transfer dispute with the airline and its current promoter, Ajay Singh.
Justice Chandra Dhari Singh has also dismissed Maran’s challenge to the award where his claim for damages and restitution of 58.46% shareholding in SpiceJet was rejected by the Tribunal.
The dispute between the parties had arisen under a ‘Share Sale and Purchase Agreement’ (SSPA) executed between them in 2015, where Maran and his firm had sold their entire 58.46 per cent stake in SpiceJet to its co-founder, Singh.
Title: MONK ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR. v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 644
The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi Government to ensure availability of Delhi Online Registration System (DORIS), a cloud storage server, to all Sub-Registrars for preservation of documents including those relating to land records.
“For the said purpose the Principal Secretary (Revenue), GNCTD shall be personally responsible to ensure implementation of the DORIS system,” Justice Prathiba M Singh directed.
Title: RAVINDER SINGH BHASIN v. KANWALJIT KAUR & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 645
The Delhi High Court has said that the family court should not give an adjournment for long period while referring the parties to a matrimonial dispute to a Court Counsellor for exploring the possibility of a settlement.
While preponing a matrimonial dispute pending before a family court which was adjourned to October 18, Justice Navin Chawla said:
“Even though the order records that there are approximately 4000 matrimonial cases of various nature pending before the learned Family Court, such a long adjournment is still not warranted. The Court has to keep a watch on the petition/counseling proceedings that take place before the Court Counselor on a regular basis, and such watch cannot happen if the Court adjourns the matter for such a long date.”
Title: ASHWINI KUMAR UPADHYAY v. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 646
The Delhi High Court recently refused to entertain a public interest litigation to restrict cash transaction of goods, products and services purchased through online shopping platforms like Amazon and Flipkart.
The petitioner, Advocate and BJP leader Ashwani Kumar Upadhyay, sought to withdraw the PIL after a division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula expressed the inclination of dismissing the plea.
As the bench was about to reserve the order on merits, Upadhyay prayed for withdrawal of the petition, with the liberty to take recourse to other remedies available under law.
Case Title: B L Kashyap and Sons Ltd vs Emaar India Ltd
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 647
The Delhi High Court has ruled that alleged liquidity crunch of the award debtor cannot be a sufficient cause under Order XXI Rule 26(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) to grant stay of the enforcement proceedings in relation to an arbitral award.
The bench of Justice Yogesh Khanna made the observation while hearing a plea seeking modification of the court’s order in the execution petition filed by the award holder, where the court had directed the award debtor to deposit the entire award amount of Rs.165 crores. The award debtor sought to modify the court’s order so as to enable him to furnish bank guarantee instead of cash deposit, on the ground that the same shall lead to liquidity crunch in its company.
Title: STATE (NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY) v. MOHD YASIN MALIK
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 648
The Delhi High Court has directed the Tihar jail superintendent to produce Kashmiri separatist leader Yasin Malik, convicted in a terror funding case, via video conferencing only and not in person on August 09, when the appeal moved by NIA seeking death penalty for him is listed for hearing.
A division bench of Justice Siddharth Mridul and Justice Anish Dayal allowed an urgent application moved by Tihar jail authorities to produce Malik through video conferencing.
The court modified its earlier order passed on May 29 issuing production warrants against Malik for August 09. The jail authorities had moved the application citing heavy security issue” in producing Malik physically in court.
Title: VIVEKANANDA INSTITUTE OF PROFESSIONAL STUDIES v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 649
The Delhi High Court has said that the candidates intending to apply for admissions in different colleges affiliated with the Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University under the Management Quota seats shall be eligible to apply in both online and offline modes.
A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna directed the varsity to make an online portal to display the branch and college-wise seats available with it under Management Quota so that the prospective students can apply online as well as offline against the available seats.
“The college shall display the list of aspirant admission seekers on the online portal as well as on the notice board of the college. The college shall prepare common merit wise list of candidates who have applied through online and offline mode. The merit list college wise shall be published online,” the bench directed.
Title: TEJASWI CHHATWAL & ORS. v. DR.B.R. AMBEDKAR UNIVERSITY DELHI AND ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 650
The Dr. B. R. Ambedkar University has informed the Delhi High Court that it has withdrawn the advertisement requiring a mandatory disclosure of religion by those applying to the post of Guest Faculty in the varsity’s School of Global Studies.
Justice Chandra Dhari Singh was informed by the varsity’s counsel that the employment notice published on July 24 has been withdrawn.
Taking note of the University’s submission, the court disposed of a plea moved by three “prospective applicants” for their empanelment as the Guest Faculty who challenged the advertisement.
Case Title: WHITEHAT EDUCATION TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED v. VINAY KUMAR SINGH
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 651
The Delhi High Court has permanently restrained an individual from using ‘Whitehat SR’ mark, logos or any name which is either identical or deceptively similar variant of the mark “WhiteHat Jr” which is registered in favour of an online coding tutoring platform for children.
“The mark ‘WHITEHAT JR’ is a registered trademark which has acquired enormous reputation owing to the extensive use which has been done over a short period of time. The impugned mark of the Defendant is ‘WHITEHAT SR’, which is almost identical to the Plaintiff’s mark. In fact, the writing style of the letter ‘W’ is also identical to the Plaintiff’s writing style. The mark is a registered trademark of the Plaintiff,” Justice Prathiba M Singh said.
Case Title: MOHD. YASIN PATEL ALIAS FALAHI v. STATE
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 652
The Delhi High Court recently allowed a US national, who was convicted in 2003 under the POTA Act and for the offence of Sedition under IPC for being member of the banned outfit SIMI, to travel abroad for four weeks to visit his ailing father in Chicago.
“Accordingly, we allow the applicant/appellant to travel to Chicago, U.S.A. for the abovementioned purpose for the period of 4 (four) weeks from the date he actually departs from Delhi,, subject to furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- in respect of him with the Surety Bond of like amount each to be furnished by his wife, two sons and one daughter with the Register General of this Court,” a division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna said.
No TDS Deductible On Commission Payment To Non-Resident Agent Overseas: Delhi High Court
Case Title: PCIT Versus Maharani Enterprises
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 653
The Delhi High Court has held that commission payments to non-resident agents overseas are not chargeable to tax and there is no TDS required to be deducted under Section 195 of the Income Tax Act.
The bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan has observed that there is no material on record to even remotely suggest that the non-resident, who had been paid the export commission, had any permanent establishment in India, carried on any business within the taxable territory in India, or had any business connection in India rendering them liable to pay tax.
Case Title: Indian Oil Corporation Ltd vs Director of Legal Metrology & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 654
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the ‘compounding fee’ paid for compounding an offence under a Statute, is not in the nature of a tax or duty. The court remarked that the compounding fee is deposited by a person to avoid initiation of coercive proceedings against him and to obtain closure. Thus, the deposit of compounding fee should not in all circumstances be necessarily viewed as an acceptance of guilt or an admission of violation of a statutory obligation, the court said.
The bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Dharmesh Sharma made the observation while hearing a plea filed by oil marketing companies- the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd (IOCL), Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd (HPCL), and Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd (BPCL). The appellant-companies had challenged the Single Judge’s order where it had refused to grant refund of the compounding fee paid by them under Section 48 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 for compounding the offences under the Act.
Case Title: MANMOHAN SINGH @ MONU v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 655
The Delhi High Court has deprecated the practice of filing writ petitions for grant of parole instead of approaching the competent authorities for seeking the relief.
Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma was hearing a plea moved by one Manmohan Singh alias Monu seeking second spell of furlough for two weeks or grant of parole for 30 days in a gang rape case registered against him in 2008.
The FIR was registered at Tilak Nagar police station for the offences under Sections 376(2)(g) [punishment for gang rape], 328 [causing hurt by means of poison, etc., with intent to commit an offence] and 34 [common intention] of Indian Penal Code, 1860.