Citations 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 317 to 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 359NOMINAL INDEXPRITHVI RAJ KASANA & ORS. v. STATE 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 317X v. Y 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 318MONEYWISE FINANCIAL SERVICES V. DILIP JAIN 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 319SHAKUNTLA DEVI & ANR v. STATE THROUGH COMMISSIONER OF DELHI POLICE & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 320LATE AKSHEM CHAND THROUGH LR ATLO DEVI v. SURESH BALA & ORS....
Citations 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 317 to 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 359
NOMINAL INDEX
PRITHVI RAJ KASANA & ORS. v. STATE 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 317
X v. Y 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 318
MONEYWISE FINANCIAL SERVICES V. DILIP JAIN 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 319
SHAKUNTLA DEVI & ANR v. STATE THROUGH COMMISSIONER OF DELHI POLICE & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 320
LATE AKSHEM CHAND THROUGH LR ATLO DEVI v. SURESH BALA & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 321
AKHILESH KUMAR GUPTA v. MS. GUPTA SNIZHANA GRYGORIVNA & 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 322
LALIT SHARMA AND ORS v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS and other connected matter 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 323
X v. Y 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 324
UMESH KUMAR v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 325
VEDPAL v. THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 326
National Association Of Software And Services Companies (NASSCOM) Versus Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption) Circle 2 (1) 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 327
AJAY SHUKLA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 328
SURJIT SINGH YADAV v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 329
GAUTAM GAMBHIR v. PUNJAB KESARI & ORS.2024 LiveLaw (Del) 330
WARNER BROS. ENTERTAINMENT INC. & ORS. v. DOODSTREAM.COM & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 331
G & S International Versus Commissioner Of Customs 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 332
PCIT Versus M/S Paramount Propbuild Pvt. Ltd. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 333
SYED ABU ALA v. NCB 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 334
Alka Sachdeva vs Bhasin Infotech And Infrastucture Pvt. Ltd. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 335
Ved Contracts Pvt Ltd Vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 336
ARVIND KEJRIWAL v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 337
MOHIT YADAV v. STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 338
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION v. A RAJA & ORS 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 339
INDIAN NATIONAL CONGRESS v. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL - 19 & ANR. and other connected matters 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 340
Apex Buldsys Limited v. IRCON International Ltd 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 341
Avdhesh Mittal Vs Deepak Vig. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 342
Srf Limited Vs Jonson Rubber Industries Limited. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 343
M/S. Assam Petroleum Ltd. & Ors Vs M/S. China Petroleum Technology Dev. Corp. & Ors 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 344
CG Engineering Company Vs Ircon Infrastructure And Services Limited (Ircon Isl) And Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 345
Central University Of Jharkhand Vs M/S. King Furnishing And Safe Co 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 346
GANGA SARAN v. THE COMISSIONER OF POLICE 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 347
M/s Fortuna Skill Management Pvt Ltd v. M/s Jaina Marketing and Associates 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 348
Maj. Pankaj Rai vs M/s Niit Ltd. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 349
Orchid Infrastructure Developers Pvt. Ltd. Versus PCIT 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 350
AKSHAR REDDY VANGA AND ANR. REPRESENTED BY SUBBA REDDY VANGA v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 351
SHAMBHAVI SHARMA v. HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI (THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR GENERAL) 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 352
Spml Infra Limited vs Ntpc Limited 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 353
M/S Moneywise Financial Services Pvt Lt Vs Dilip Jain And Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 354
Mrvs Value Straight Private Limited & Anr. Vs Brightstar Restaurant Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 355
X v. Y 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 356
MADHAV CHAUDHARY v. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 357
Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited Vs Kanohar Electricals Limited 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 358
M/s Upper India Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd Vs M/s Hero Fincorp Ltd 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 359
Title: PRITHVI RAJ KASANA & ORS. v. STATE
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 317
The Delhi High Court has said that an order for the grant of pre-arrest bail cannot be passed in a routine manner so as to allow the accused to use it as a shield.
Justice Amit Mahajan observed that a great amount of humiliation and disgrace is attached to arrest, and custodial interrogation must be avoided where the accused has joined the investigation, cooperates with the investigating agency and is not likely to abscond.
Title: X v. Y
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 318
The Delhi High Court has observed that the court must scrutinize the complaint or FIR filed by the wife against the husband and his family members to determine whether the allegations are a “case of cheer drafting” or have some element of truth.
Justice Navin Chawla observed that where the wife is set to implicate the entire family of the husband in a criminal case, it is to be expected that she would get a complaint properly drafted through her lawyer making specific allegations against each one of them.
Case Title: MONEYWISE FINANCIAL SERVICES V. DILIP JAIN
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 319
The High Court of Delhi has held that a determination on the impleadment of a non-signatory guarantor to the arbitration proceedings should be made by the arbitral tribunal once the referral court forms a prima facie view on non-signatory being a veritable party.
Title: SHAKUNTLA DEVI & ANR v. STATE THROUGH COMMISSIONER OF DELHI POLICE & ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 320
The Delhi High Court has observed that the tribunals established under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, to protect the rights and interests of the elderly are expected to adjudicate their matters expeditiously in order to provide them support and redressal.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said that specific amendments to the existing laws are necessary to ensure the timely resolution of cases involving senior citizens.
Title: LATE AKSHEM CHAND THROUGH LR ATLO DEVI v. SURESH BALA & ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 321
The Delhi High Court has imposed Rs. 1 lakh costs on a lawyer for filing an application under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and trying to resuscitate the issue of forged and fabricated title documents filed in a civil suit in 2009.
“The applicant is a practising advocate. This Court cannot believe that the applicant is unaware of the law. It is obviously in full knowledge and consciousness of what he is doing, and the manner in which he is abusing the legal process with impunity, that the applicant has filed the present application,” Justice C Hari Shankar said.
Title: AKHILESH KUMAR GUPTA v. MS. GUPTA SNIZHANA GRYGORIVNA & ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 322
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a plea moved by a former husband challenging a family court order which rejected his guardianship petition seeking custody of his 5 year old minor child, a citizen of Ukraine.
A division bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Amit Bansal said that it is in the best interest of the child, notwithstanding the hostilities in other parts of the country, to remain in the company of the mother and his sibling, also citizens of Ukraine, as it will provide a safe environment to the minor.
Title: LALIT SHARMA AND ORS v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS and other connected matter
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 323
A full bench of the Delhi High Court has held that elections to the Executive Committee of all bar associations in the national capital shall be held simultaneously on the same day for a uniform period of two years.
A full bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Manmohan, Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Suresh Kumar Kait clarified that the electoral rolls of all the bar associations shall be prepared as per their own Rules and Bye-Laws.
Title: X v. Y
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 324
The Delhi High Court has observed that forcefully asking a wife to do household chores if her health does not permit her to do so amounts to cruelty.
“In our opinion, when a wife indulges herself to do household chores, she does it by affection and love for her family. However, if her health or other circumstances do not permit her to do so, forcefully asking her to do house hold chores would certainly be cruelty,” a division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna said.
Members Of Town Vending Committee Not 'Frontline COVID-19 Warriors': Delhi High Court
Title: UMESH KUMAR v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 325
The Delhi High Court has recently ruled that the members of the Town Vending Committee (TVC) in the national capital are not frontline COVID-19 warriors.
Justice Subramonium Prasad dismissed the plea moved by a son seeking compensation of Rs. 25 lakh for the death of his father, a TVC member, who succumbed to COVID-19 in May 2021.
Title: VEDPAL v. THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 326
The Delhi High Court has observed that cheating in government examinations or resorting to dishonest means to obtain leaked papers not only undermines the merit-based selection process but also erodes public trust in a fair and transparent examination system.
“…cheating in government exams can have far-reaching consequences for society as a whole. It can lead to the recruitment of incompetent or unqualified individuals in key government positions, which can have detrimental effects on public service delivery, governance, and overall development,” Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said.
Case Title: National Association Of Software And Services Companies (NASSCOM) Versus Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption) Circle 2 (1)
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 327
The Delhi High Court has held that a 20% pre-deposit demand is not a precondition for consideration of a stay application during the pendency of the first appeal.
Delhi High Court Rejects Review Plea Against Dismissal Of PIL Against Truecaller With ₹10K Costs
Title: AJAY SHUKLA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 328
The Delhi High Court has rejected a review plea against an order which dismissed a PIL against Truecaller alleging that the global caller ID Platform violates the right of privacy of citizens of India.
A division bench comprising of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora dismissed the review petition with Rs. 10,000 costs.
Title: SURJIT SINGH YADAV v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 329
The Delhi High Court has rejected a PIL seeking direction on the Union Government and Election Commission of India (ECI) to register a complaint and prosecute politicians Rahul Gandhi, Arvind Kejriwal and Akhilesh Yadav for making allegedly misleading and false statements with an intent to damage India's image and credibility.
A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora closed the PIL moved by Surjit Singh Yadav, who claims to be a social worker.
Gautam Gambhir's Defamation Suit Against Punjab Kesari Settled Before Delhi High Court
Title: GAUTAM GAMBHIR v. PUNJAB KESARI & ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 330
The defamation suit filed by former cricketer and BJP MP Gautam Gambhir against Hindi daily newspaper Punjab Kesari and its reporters has been settled before the Delhi High Court.
Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma disposed of the suit in view of the settlement agreement entered into between both the parties.
Title: WARNER BROS. ENTERTAINMENT INC. & ORS. v. DOODSTREAM.COM & ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 331
The Delhi High Court has recently directed three alleged rogue cyberlocker websites and their operators to take down the listings of copyrighted content of leading entertainment companies like Netflix, Amazon, University City Studios and others.
Justice Anish Dayal further directed the rogue websites and their operators to disable all features from their platform allowing “regeneration of links and reuploading of infringing content” after takedown.
Case Title: G & S International Versus Commissioner Of Customs
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 332
The Delhi High Court has held that the proviso to Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962, gives discretion to the Tribunal in cases of undue hardships to dispense the obligation to deposit the duty, interest, or penalty.
Case Title: PCIT Versus M/S Paramount Propbuild Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 333
The Delhi High Court has held that the AO has not taken any concrete steps to ascertain the genuineness and creditworthiness of the transactions.
The bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav has observed that clause (a) of Explanation 2 of Section 263 of the Act introduces a deeming fiction to the effect that the order passed by the AO shall be considered erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue if the order is passed without making inquiries or verification, which should have been made.
Title: SYED ABU ALA v. NCB
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 334
The Delhi High Court has permitted a 73 year old man, convicted under the NDPS Act in 2010, to travel abroad for a month to Saudi Arabia for performing Hajj or Umrah pilgrimage.
“The Hajj pilgrimage holds immense significance in the Islamic faith, representing one of the five pillars of Islam, and is a religious duty for every Muslim,” Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said.
Case Title: Alka Sachdeva vs Bhasin Infotech And Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 335
The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Prateek Jalan dismissed the contention that a party can waive its right to object to the arbitrator's appointment through its conduct. It underscored that any waiver under Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act must be explicit and in writing. It noted that there is no room for implying a waiver of rights under Section 12(5) through conduct or any other means.
Case Title: Ved Contracts Pvt Ltd Vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 336
The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani held that if there are no clear indications to the contrary, the venue specified in an arbitration clause should be considered as the seat of arbitral proceedings. It underscored importance of discerning the intention of the parties by examining the entirety of the contract's terms.
Title: ARVIND KEJRIWAL v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 337
The Delhi High Court has refused to pass orders granting interim protection from coercive action at this stage to Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal in the money laundering case related to the alleged liquor policy case.
“We have heard both the sides. However, at this stage, we are not inclined [to pass any order],” a division bench comprising Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Manoj Jain said.
Title: MOHIT YADAV v. STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 338
The Delhi High Court has observed that it is crucial to recognize the “emotional toll” of delays in the trial on rape victims and emphasised that their appearances in court for the purpose of deposition must be minimum.
“Recognizing the emotional toll of such delays is crucial in ensuring that survivors are treated with the sensitivity and respect they deserve throughout the legal proceedings which includes expeditious trials and minimum possible essential appearances in the Court for the purpose of deposition,” Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said.
2G Scam: Delhi High Court Admits CBI's Appeal Against Acquittal Of A Raja, Others
Title: CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION v. A RAJA & ORS
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 339
The Delhi High Court has admitted the appeal moved by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) challenging the acquittal of former telecom minister and current Lok Sabha MP, A Raja and various others in the 2G spectrum allocation scam case.
Delhi High Court Dismisses Congress Party's Pleas Against Tax Re-Assessment Proceedings
Title: INDIAN NATIONAL CONGRESS v. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL - 19 & ANR. and other connected matters
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 340
The Delhi High Court has dismissed the pleas moved by the Indian National Congress against the initiation of income tax re-assessment proceedings against it for three years (2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17) by the tax authorities.
A division bench comprising Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav said that Congress had chosen to approach the court only a few days before the time for completion of assessment would expire and at the “proverbial fag end of the proceedings.”
One Party Cannot Appoint 2/3rd Of The Arbitral Tribunal: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Apex Buldsys Limited v. IRCON International Ltd
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 341
The High Court of Delhi has held that a panel for appointment of arbitrator cannot be restricted to mere 3 names as it would violate broad-based representation. Moreover, one party cannot appoint 2/3rd members of the arbitral tribunal as it would violate principles of neutrality and counter-balancing.
Case Title: Avdhesh Mittal Vs Deepak Vig.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 342
The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri held that the delivery of a signed copy of the arbitral award to a party isn't merely procedural but confers a substantive right upon them to challenge the award within the statutory period. The bench held that the presumption of deemed service under Section 3 of the Arbitration Act is rebuttable and can be negated if a party establishes that delivery of the written communication could not have been effected despite fulfilling the conditions under Section 3.
Case Title: Srf Limited Vs Jonson Rubber Industries Limited.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 343
The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Prathibha M. Singh held that the tax invoices explicitly containing the arbitration clause and parties without raising any dispute concerning it are legally bound by the arbitration clause.
“In the present case, the parties have a running account which is not in dispute. Two purchase orders may have been placed by the Respondent and various invoices may have been issued by the Petitioner. These invoices clearly state that the terms and conditions listed at the back are applicable. Considering that the parties are in regular business dealings with each other, it cannot be said prima facie that the rear of the invoice was not supplied to the Respondent.”
Case Tite: M/S. Assam Petroleum Ltd. & Ors Vs M/S. China Petroleum Technology Dev. Corp. & Ors
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 344
The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna held that held that once a defendant submits itself to the jurisdiction of the Court and abandons its application under Section 8, it cannot subsequently seek referral of the disputes to arbitration under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act.
Case Title: CG Engineering Company Vs Ircon Infrastructure And Services Limited (Ircon Isl) And Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 345
The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma held that arbitral tribunal should generally be the primary authority to determine non-arbitrability, except in cases where claims were manifestly and ex facie non-arbitrable. It held that Sub-lease Agreement excluded the disputes related to public premise from arbitration, therefore, making them non-arbitrable.
Case Title: Central University Of Jharkhand Vs M/S. King Furnishing And Safe Co
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 346
The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh held that there is no bar in filing a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the same can be filed without pre deposit of 75% of the awarded amount under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006. However, the bench held that the petition will not be “entertained” under Section 19 of MSMED Act without the deposit of 75 % of the awarded amount.
Delhi High Court Dismisses PIL To Remove Automated Voice Prefixed In Emergency Helpline
Title: GANGA SARAN v. THE COMISSIONER OF POLICE
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 347
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation seeking removal of Interactive Voice Response (IVR) and other computer-generated voice prefixed in Emergency Helpline No. 112.
A division bench comprising of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora that the IVR system in place is best in the current scenario even though it may not be perfect.
Case Title: M/s Fortuna Skill Management Pvt Ltd v. M/s Jaina Marketing and Associates
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 348
The High Court of Delhi has held that an arbitral tribunal cannot be faulted for disallowing additional evidence at the fag end especially when the document was already in possession of the party.
The bench of Justice Prateek Jalan also held that arbitral tribunal is not strictly bound by the Indian Evidence Act.
Case Title: Maj. Pankaj Rai vs M/s Niit Ltd.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 349
The Delhi High Court single bench comprising Justice Prateek Jalan held that once an arbitration award has been acknowledged to be fully and finally settled by both the parties, it cannot be challenged on the basis of one-sided nature of the arbitration agreement.
Case Title: Orchid Infrastructure Developers Pvt. Ltd. Versus PCIT
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 350
The Delhi High Court has held that the judgement of Abhisar Buildwell passed by the Supreme Court cannot be construed to be an authority to override the mandate of Section 245-I of the Income Tax Act.
Citizenship Act Prevails Over Passport Manual: Delhi High Court
Title: AKSHAR REDDY VANGA AND ANR. REPRESENTED BY SUBBA REDDY VANGA v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 351
The Delhi High Court has said that the Citizenship Act, 1955, prevails over the Passport Manual of 2020, observing that a subordinate legislation cannot override the parent legislation.
Justice Subramaniam Prasad allowed the plea moved by two minor children against the authorities' decision to cancel their Indian passports and not reissuing the same.
Delhi Judicial Service Mains Examination 2023 Shall Be Conducted On April 13, 14: High Court
Title: SHAMBHAVI SHARMA v. HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI (THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR GENERAL)
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 352
The Delhi High Court has ordered that the Delhi Judicial Service Mains Examination (Written) 2023 shall be held on April 13-14.
A division bench comprising of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Amit Bansal directed its Registrar General to shift the date of examination by about 12 days. The examination was earlier to be held on March 30-31.
Case Title: Spml Infra Limited vs Ntpc Limited
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 353
The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Prateek Jalan held that failure to file a copy of arbitral award renders the filing under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 incomplete. The bench held that without the copy of the challenged award, it is impossible to consider the grounds to set aside the arbitral award.
Case Title: M/S Moneywise Financial Services Pvt Lt Vs Dilip Jain And Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 354
The Delhi High Court single bench Justice Jasmeet Singh that the parties which assured document execution and provided security for the transaction are integral part of the loan agreement.
Case Title: Mrvs Value Straight Private Limited & Anr. Vs Brightstar Restaurant Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 355
The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma dismissed a petition under Section 11(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 noting that the Petitioners were not party to Memorandum of Understanding containing the arbitration clause, thus there was no privity of contract between the Petitioners and the Respondent.
Wife Openly Humiliating Husband, Calling Him Impotent Amounts To Mental Cruelty: Delhi High Court
Title: X v. Y
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 356
The Delhi High Court has said that being openly humiliated and called impotent by the wife in front of family members is an act of humiliation causing mental cruelty to the husband.
A division bench comprising Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna made the observation while granting divorce to a husband on the grounds of cruelty by the wife under Section 13 (1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act,1955.
Title: MADHAV CHAUDHARY v. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ANR.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 357
The Delhi High Court has observed that the examination system does not permit students to be penalised for having poor handwriting.
The court however emphasized that students must write properly readable answers and examiners cannot be asked to evaluate completely unintelligible handwritings.
Case Title: Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited Vs Kanohar Electricals Limited
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 358
The Delhi High Court division bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Amit Bansal held Liquidated damages, in law, are no different from unliquidated damages that an aggrieved party may claim. In both instances, the aggrieved party is required to demonstrate legal injury.
Case Title: M/s Upper India Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd Vs M/s Hero Fincorp Ltd
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 359
The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh held aside an arbitral award noting that the arbitrator was unilaterally appointed by the Respondent. The bench held that that the unilateral appointment of the Sole Arbitrator by Respondent was non-est in law, as it contravened Section 12(5) read with the Seventh Schedule of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.