Citations 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 253 to 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 285NOMINAL INDEXMaster Arnesh Shaw v. Union of India & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 253M/s MAC Associates vs Parvinder Singh 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 254My Preferred Transformation And Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. Vs Panchdeep Constuction Limited 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 255MAHUA MOITRA v. NISHIKANT DUBEY & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 256NAAM TAMILAR...
Citations 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 253 to 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 285
NOMINAL INDEX
Master Arnesh Shaw v. Union of India & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 253
M/s MAC Associates vs Parvinder Singh 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 254
My Preferred Transformation And Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. Vs Panchdeep Constuction Limited 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 255
MAHUA MOITRA v. NISHIKANT DUBEY & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 256
NAAM TAMILAR KATCHI THROUGH ITS PRESIDENT v. ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 257
EHTESHAM QUTUBUDDIN SIDDIQUE v. CPIO, DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING and other connected matter 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 258
Kamladityya Construction Pvt Ltd Vs Union Of India 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 259
Sterlite Technologies Ltd. Vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 260
M/S. Fiberfill Engineers Through Its Partner Mr. Rishabh Kishore Vs M/S. Indian Oil Corporation Limited Through Dy. General Manager (Engg.) 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 261
Union Of India Vs NCC Limited 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 262
Directorate of Education v. Master Singham & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 263
M/S. Breakthrough Concepts Vs M/S. Atrix Group Of Restaurants & Anr 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 264
National Skill Development Corporation Vs Best First Step Education Private Limited & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 265
X v. Y 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 266
ABHI TRADERS v. FASHNEAR TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 267
AJAY KUMAR MAHAWAR & ORS. V/s LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI, THROUGH SECRETARY & ANR. and other connected matters 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 268
MOHAMMAD HAKIM AND ANR v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 269
SUJIT KUMAR SINGH v. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PRISONS, GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 270
X v. Y 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 271
X v. Y 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 272
Tata Motor Limited vs Delhi Transport Corporation 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 273
VIRENDER CHAHAL @ VIRENDER v. STATE AND ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 274
RAJEEV DAGAR v. STATE & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 275
X v. Y 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 276
JINDAL INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED v. SUNCITY SHEETS PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 277
S v. STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 278
PCIT Versus M/S Clix Finance India Pvt. Ltd. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 279
PCIT Versus M/S Forum Sales Pvt. Ltd. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 280
Raghav Ventures Versus Commissioner Of Delhi Goods & Services Tax 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 281
RITIKA PRASAD v. GURU GOBIND SINGH INDRAPRASTHA UNIVERSITY 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 282
Max Healthcare Institute Limited Versus UOI 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 283
DAE (SY 22) 13 IRELAND DESIGNATED ACTIVITY COMPANY v. GO AIRLINES (INDIA) LTD. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 284
SANJAY JAIN v. ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 285
Custom Duties, Charges Not To Be Levied On Medicines For Rare Diseases: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Master Arnesh Shaw v. Union of India & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 253
The Delhi High Court has clarified that custom duties and charges shall not be levied on medicines, drugs and therapies for rare diseases.
Justice Prathiba M Singh took note of the gazette notification issued by the Union Ministry of Finance on March 29 last year under the Customs Act, 1962, which included drugs, medicines or food for special medical purposes used for treatment of rare diseases.
Case Title: M/s MAC Associates vs Parvinder Singh
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 254
The Delhi High Court division bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Amit Bansal held that arbitration cannot be binding on parties unless the terms and conditions of the referenced agreement, which includes an arbitration clause, are explicitly incorporated into the new contract.
Case Title: My Preferred Transformation And Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. Vs Panchdeep Constuction Limited
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 255
The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Prateek Jalan held that designation of a seat of arbitration is akin to an exclusive jurisdiction clause. It emphasized that in an agreement featuring distinct forum selection and seat clauses, the clause designating the seat takes precedence and assumes pre-eminence.
Tile: MAHUA MOITRA v. NISHIKANT DUBEY & ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 256
The Delhi High Court refused to restrain at this stage BJP MP Nishikant Dubey and lawyer Jai Anant Dehadrai from posting allegedly defamatory content against Trinamool Congress leader Mahua Moitra on social media.
Justice Sachin Datta denied interim relief to Moitra in the defamation suit filed by her against Dubey and Dehadrai, in connection with the “cash for query” allegations.
Title: NAAM TAMILAR KATCHI THROUGH ITS PRESIDENT v. ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA & ANR.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 257
The Delhi High Court has upheld the “first-come-first-served” criteria of allotting a free symbol to an unrecognized party under the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968.
A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora dismissed the plea moved by Naam Tamilar Katchi, an unrecognized political party, challenging the vires of Explanation (iv) and Proviso 1 to Explanation (iv) of Order 10B (B) of the Election Symbols Order, which provides for the criteria in question.
Title: EHTESHAM QUTUBUDDIN SIDDIQUE v. CPIO, DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING and other connected matter
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 258
The Delhi High Court has dismissed the pleas moved by a death row convict in the Mumbai twin blast case (7/11 bomb blast) seeking information under the Right to Information Act, 2005, on the Intelligence Bureau report as well as appointment of IAS and IPS officers who supervised the probe and accorded sanction to the prosecution relating to his arrest and conviction.
Case Title: Kamladityya Construction Pvt Ltd Vs Union Of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 259
The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh terminated mandate of an arbitrator who disclosed the award prematurely and revealed details about several claims during the hearing of the arbitral proceedings to the party. The bench held that Section 42 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 mandates for strictest confidentiality in arbitration proceedings and the Award itself.
Case Title: Sterlite Technologies Ltd. Vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 260
The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Prathiba M Singh held that multiple arbitrations before different Arbitral Tribunals in respect of the same contract is counterproductive and ought to be avoided.
The bench held that it is incumbent on the parties to disclose such information to the court when approaching for appointment of arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996.
Case Title: M/S. Fiberfill Engineers Through Its Partner Mr. Rishabh Kishore Vs M/S. Indian Oil Corporation Limited Through Dy. General Manager (Engg.)
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 261
The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Prateek Jalan set aside an arbitral award noting that the Indian Oil Corporation Limited failed to present evidence before the Arbitrator, thereby, making it impossible to adjudicate the contention raised regarding payment of dues. The bench imposed a substantial costs of Rs.1 lakh on the Indian Oil for taking unjustifiable contrary stands at various points in the proceedings.
Case Title: Union Of India Vs NCC Limited
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 262
The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Prateek Jalan held that non filing of the arbitral award along with the Petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is a fatal defect, making such filing as non-est.
The bench held that the absence of a copy of the award renders it impossible to appreciate the grounds for seeking to set aside the award.
Title: Directorate of Education v. Master Singham & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 263
The Delhi High Court modified a single judge's order that increased the income threshold of Rs. 1 lakh per annum, for admissions under Economically Weaker Section (EWS) category in schools in the city, to Rs. 5 lakhs.
A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora stayed the directions of the single judge and said that the threshold income under the EWS category shall be increased from Rs. 1 lakh to Rs. 2.5 lakhs, till further orders.
Case Title: M/S. Breakthrough Concepts Vs M/S. Atrix Group Of Restaurants & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 264
The Delhi High Court single bench comprising held that 'negotiation' necessitates communication between the involved parties, asserting that a party failing to respond to legal notices from another cannot be considered actively participating in the negotiation process. Consequently, Justice Sharma referred the matter to arbitral tribunal.
Case Title: National Skill Development Corporation Vs Best First Step Education Private Limited & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 265
The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Prateek Jalan held that a petition under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is maintainable when filed before the award is delivered during the ongoing petition, but becomes non-maintainable if filed after the award is delivered and proceedings for setting aside have commenced.
Husband Expecting Wife To Do Household Chores Can't Be Termed As Cruelty: Delhi High Court
Title: X v. Y
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 266
The Delhi High Court has observed that a husband expecting his wife to do household chores cannot be termed as cruelty.
A division bench comprising Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna made the observation while dealing with a husband's appeal challenging a family court order rejecting his plea seeking dissolution of marriage on the grounds of cruelty by the wife.
Title: ABHI TRADERS v. FASHNEAR TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 267
The Delhi High Court has observed that there is an obligation on the E-Commerce platforms to ensure that complete details of the sellers are available on their site so that consumers are aware of the sellers from whom the product has been purchased, as well as the entity who is listing the product.
“The Consumer Protection (E- Commerce) Rules, 2020, notified on 23rd July, 2020, imposes an obligation as per section 5, on the e-commerce platform to give the full geographic address, customer care number, rating and other feedback about the seller for enabling consumers to make informed decision at the pre-purchase stage,” Justice Sanjeev Narula said.
Delhi High Court Sets Aside Suspension Of 7 BJP MLAs From Delhi Assembly Budget Session
Title: AJAY KUMAR MAHAWAR & ORS. V/s LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI, THROUGH SECRETARY & ANR. and other connected matters
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 268
The Delhi High Court allowed the petitions filed by seven BJP MLAs challenging their recent suspension from the remainder of the Budget session of the Delhi Assembly, for allegedly interrupting the Lieutenant Governor's address.
Ration Cards Can't Be Considered As Proof Of Address Or Residence: Delhi High Court
Title: MOHAMMAD HAKIM AND ANR v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 269
The Delhi High Court has observed that a ration card is issued exclusively for obtaining essential commodities from shops under the public distribution system and cannot be considered as proof of address or residence.
Justice Chandra Dhari Singh said that there is no mechanism setup by the authority issuing ration cards to ensure that the holder is staying at the address mentioned therein.
Title: SUJIT KUMAR SINGH v. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PRISONS, GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 270
The Delhi High Court has observed that verification of local surety bonds needs to be ensured within strict timelines in a time bound manner to avoid exploitation of prisoner or surety in any manner.
Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta said that after bail orders have been issued by the Court, the State is bound to ensure smooth release of the accused or convicts at the earliest, without any bottlenecks or delay.
Title: X v. Y
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 271
The Delhi High Court has observed that unfortunate are the matrimonial disputes where the “fountain head of friction” inter se the spouses is mere lack of adjustment, understanding and the will to stay together.
“These factors are the wheels of the chariot of a workable marriage and if either spouse becomes averse to move together and chooses to abandon the relationship, then extensive reconciliatory efforts by one spouse, would also not yield any results,” a division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna said.
Mere Acquittal In Cruelty Case By Wife No Ground To Grant Divorce To Husband: Delhi High Court
Title: X v. Y
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 272
While rejecting a husband's plea for divorce, the Delhi High Court has observed that his mere acquittal in a criminal case filed by the wife alleging cruelty cannot be a ground for him to seek divorce.
A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna made the observation while upholding a family court order denying divorce to a husband who alleged cruelty by the wife. His divorce petition filed under Section 13(1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, was rejected by the family court.
Case Title: Tata Motor Limited vs Delhi Transport Corporation
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 273
The Delhi High Court bench comprising Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri held that the Section 9 application under Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 cannot act as res judicata for Section 17 application when the withdrawal of Section 9 application is conditional between the parties. The bench dismissed the reliance on Kanchan Kapoor v. Swaran Kumar noting that the principles of res judicata applied in that case due to the appellant's unconditional withdrawal of an appeal against a civil court judgment, where there was a finding against the appellant.
Title: VIRENDER CHAHAL @ VIRENDER v. STATE AND ANR.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 274
The Delhi High Court has expressed concern over the conduct of a trial court judge here who “suggested and assisted” the accused and victim to settle a rape case during recording of prosecution evidence.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma directed that the case be tried by another judge, to ensure that justice should not only be done but also seem to be done.
Title: RAJEEV DAGAR v. STATE & ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 275
The Delhi High Court has said that in the modern days' realities and demands, a full-proof mediation process will go a long way to liberate the lifestyle of the “old judicial system of resolution through litigation” towards a “new lifestyle of resolution through mediation.”
“Whether in the Courts of law or working from the office, or mediation and arbitration rooms, the lawyers have proved that the partnership between the 'lawyer power' and the 'judicial power' have brought the functional transformation of jurisprudence whether in litigation or mediation,” Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said.
Wife's Request For Financial Support From Husband Not Cruelty: Delhi High Court
Title: X v. Y
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 276
The Delhi High Court has observed that a wife's request for financial support from her husband cannot be termed as an act of cruelty.
A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna said that though the aggrieved person is entitled to avail the remedy under laws, but crossing the point of “no return” becomes inevitable once the spouses get engulfed in the “rabbit hole of criminal litigations.”
Title: JINDAL INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED v. SUNCITY SHEETS PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANR.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 277
Quoting Shakespeare “What's in a name?”, the Delhi High Court has observed that in terms of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, the right of a person to use his or her name on one's own goods cannot be compromised, else it would compromise the right to use one's name as an identity marker, which would ex facie be unconstitutional.
“In the absence of any such caveat to be found in Section 35 (of Trade Marks Act), it may be arguable, at the very least, whether, while the use of one's name as an identity marker is permissible under Section 35, but the instance it spills over into “trade mark” territory, it is rendered impermissible. Any such interpretation, in my prima facie view, would be reading a non-existent proviso into Section 35 and, in effect, rewriting the provision,” Justice C Hari Shankar said.
Title: S v. STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 278
The Delhi High Court has observed that the right of an accused to the expeditious conclusion of trial cannot be defeated when the complainant chooses to appear as a witness at her own terms.
Justice Navin Chawla said that the accused also has a right to the expeditious conclusion of the trial, as mere pendency of a case accusing a person of a criminal offence can attach stigma and cause embarrassment.
Revisional Jurisdiction Can't Be Invoked For Inadequacy Of Enquiry By AO: Delhi High Court
Case Title: PCIT Versus M/S Clix Finance India Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 279
The Delhi High Court has held that the inadequacy of the inquiry by the AO with respect to certain claims would not in itself be a reason to invoke the powers enshrined in Section 263 of the Income Tax Act.
Case Title: PCIT Versus M/S Forum Sales Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 280
The Delhi High Court has held that any pick-and-choose method of rejecting certain entries from the books of account while accepting others without an appropriate justification is arbitrary and may lead to an incomplete, unreasonable, and erroneous computation of the income of an assessee.
Delhi High Court Directs GST Dept. To Pay 6% Interest For Delayed IGST Refund
Case Title: Raghav Ventures Versus Commissioner Of Delhi Goods & Services Tax
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 281
The Delhi High Court has directed the GST department to pay 6% interest on delayed IGST refund.
The bench of Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Ravinder Dudeja has observed that Section 56 of the CGST/DGST Act deals with the interest on delayed refunds.
Title: RITIKA PRASAD v. GURU GOBIND SINGH INDRAPRASTHA UNIVERSITY
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 282
The Delhi High Court has observed that there is no reasonable justification for only mentioning name of the father in degrees and educational certificates issued to students.
“It would be clearly retrogressive if educational certificates, degrees and other such documents reflect the name only of the father of a candidate, eliminating the name of the mother. The names of both parents should necessarily be reflected on the body of the certificate,” Justice C Hari Shankar said.
Failure To Consider Reply On Merits; Delhi High Court Quashes GST Demand Against Max Healthcare
Case Title: Max Healthcare Institute Limited Versus UOI
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 283
The Delhi High Court has quashed the GST demand of Rs. 8.23 crore against Max Healthcare.
The bench of Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Ravinder Dudeja has observed that a proper officer had to at least consider the reply on merits and then form an opinion as to whether the reply was devoid of merits. The proper officer merely held that the reply was devoid of merit, which shows that the proper officer has not applied his mind to the reply submitted by the petitioner.
Title: DAE (SY 22) 13 IRELAND DESIGNATED ACTIVITY COMPANY v. GO AIRLINES (INDIA) LTD.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 284
The Delhi High Court has issued a show cause notice to the Resolution Professional (RP) of crisis-hit Go Air as to why contempt proceedings be not initiated against him, observing that he was unable to undertake regular maintenance of the aircrafts of various lessors in terms of last year's judicial orders.
Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju observed that the directions to provide access and inspection of all the aircrafts records to the lessors and carrying out maintenance were not being adhered to by the RP.
Title: SANJAY JAIN v. ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 285
The Delhi High Court has said that the confessional statement of a co-accused under Section 50 of Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002, is not a substantive piece of evidence and can be used only for corroboration in support of other evidence to lend assurance to the Court in arriving at a conclusion of guilt.
Justice Vikas Mahajan reiterated that the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA are to be meticulously appreciated only by the Trial Court during the course of the trial and there cannot be a mini-trial at the stage of bail.