Delhi High Court Weekly Round-Up: May 29 To June 04

Arbitration Between Co-op Society and Member, Governed By S. 85(1) of the MSCS Act and Not Limitation Act: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Najmus Sehar vs M/s Bombay Marcantile Coop Bank & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 452

The Delhi High Court has ruled that the limitation period for reference of money dispute between the cooperative society and its defaulting member to arbitration, would be determined as per the provisions of Section 85(1)(a) of the Multi State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002 (MSCS Act), and not as per the Limitation Act, 1963.

The bench of Justices Rajiv Shakdher and Girish Kathpalia observed that Section 85(1)(a) of the MSCS Act clearly provides that in such disputes, the limitation period for referral to arbitration would be computed from the date on which the member dies or ceases to be a member of the society. Further, the same is notwithstanding anything contained in the Limitation Act.

Insurance Policy Is To Be Referred To Arbitration When Only One Head Of The Claims Is Disputed And Not The Entire Liability: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Shivalaya Construction Co. Pvt Ltd. v. National Insurance Company Ltd

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 453

The Delhi High Court has held that ordinarily the dispute under insurance policy claims would not be referred to arbitration when the reference is limited to quantum of compensation and the insurer disputes liability.

The bench of Justice Prateek Jalan distinguished between a situation wherein the insurer denied the entire liability and where the entire liability is not disputed but only claims under one of the heads is disputed as being outside the scope of reference.

Delhi High Court Dismisses PIL Challenging Notifications Allowing Exchange Of ₹2000 Notes Without ID Proof

Title: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 454

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation challenging Reserve Bank of India and State Bank of India's notifications that permit exchange of Rs. 2000 currency notes without requirement of any identity proof.

It observed that the Government’s decision to dispense with Rs.2000 banknotes is not a decision towards demonetisation and that the currency shall continue to remain a legal tender.

'Not Expected Of Child Of Such Tender Age To Behave Like An Adult By Raising Alarm Promptly': Delhi High Court Dismisses Appeal Of POCSO Convict

Case Title: Kishore Kumar v. State

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 455

Observing that the statement of the child victim is of sterling quality, the Delhi Court has dismissed the appeal filed against conviction for aggravated sexual assault and sexual harassment committed on a 7-year-old boy under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO).

Justice Jasmeet Singh said the child with his vocabulary and comprehension was able to describe the incident and had a clear picture in describable words.

"He at 7 years of age, is not expected nor is it possible for a child of his age to recapitulate the harrowing incidents with mathematical precision," said the court.

Delhi High Court Modifies Life Sentence To 20 Years Imprisonment In 2015 Rape And Murder Case

Case Title: Ram Tej v. State

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 456

The Delhi High Court has modified life sentence in a 2015 rape and murder case to rigorous imprisonment for a period of 20 years without remission, while considering the mitigating and extenuating circumstances.

The bench of Justice Mukta Gupta and Justice Poonam A. Bamba noted the mitigating circumstances in the case are that the age of the appellant is 38 years at the moment, he has undergone 8 years of imprisonment and that he has two minor children and a wife to look after and there is no other person in the family to look after them.

Lawyers Are Powerful Pillar Of Judicial Adjudicatory Process, Their Duty Towards Client Has To Be Respected By All: Delhi High Court

Title: DHANPATI @ DHANWANTI v. THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 457

Lawyers are an essential and powerful pillar of judicial adjudicatory process and their duty towards a client has to be respected by all, the Delhi High Court observed.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said that one of the fundamental principles of legal representation is that advocates must not allow personal biases or prejudices to influence or interfere with their professional obligations to their clients which is to uphold the principles of fairness and justice.

Women Can’t Be Forced To Choose Between Right To Education And Reproductive Autonomy: Delhi High Court

Title: RENUKA v. University Grants Commission and Anr.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 458

Observing that women cannot be forced to choose between their right to education and right to exercise reproductive autonomy, the Delhi High Court has granted relief to a female candidate seeking relaxation of her attendance for completing Master of Education (MEd) course after having been denied maternity leave.

“The Constitution envisaged an egalitarian society where citizens could exercise their rights, and the society as well as the State would allow the manifestation of their rights. A compromise was then not sought in the Constitutional scheme. The citizens could not be forced to choose between their right to education and their right to exercise reproductive autonomy,” Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav said.

Clause Prohibiting Payment Of Interest On Delayed Payments, Doesn’t Prohibit Arbitrator From Granting Interest Under S. 31(7) Of The Act: Delhi High Court

Case Title: M/s Mahesh Construction vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Anr.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 459

The Delhi High Court has ruled that a clause in a contract that prohibits payment of interest on delayed payments, does not prohibit the arbitrator from granting interest under Section 31(7) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act). The bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri held that the said stipulation only puts a restriction on the contracting party to claim interest on delayed payments. Since interest is compensatory in nature, the arbitrator’s powers are not curtailed by such narrow clauses in the contract.

Delhi High Court Rejects Manish Sisodia's Bail Plea In Delhi Liquor Policy Case, Says Allegations Of Misconduct 'Very Serious'

Title: Manish Sisodia v. CBI

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 460

The Delhi High Court has dismissed the bail plea of Aam Aadmi Party leader and former Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia in the CBI case alleging corruption in implementation of excise policy for 2021-22.

Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma pronounced the order. The court had reserved the decision on May 11

"…the allegations are very serious in nature that excise policy was formed at the instance of the “South Group” with malafide intention to give undue advantage to them. Such an act points towards the misconduct of the applicant, who was admittedly a public servant and holding highest position," Justice Sharma said.

'Prayer Completely Unwarranted': Delhi High Court Rejects Woman's Plea Seeking DNA Sample Of Husband, Father-In-Law For Matching With Own Children

Title: XXX vs. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 461

Terming it a case with an unusual prayer, the Delhi High Court has dismissed a woman's plea seeking directions for her husband and father-in-law to submit their DNA Samples before a DNA profiling agency in Rohini. The woman along with her two children had approached the court after the father-in-law allegedly "cast doubt" on their identity by claiming that "they are not Mehtas* but Aroras*".

Justice Prathiba M. Singh in the ruling said the prayers in the petition are extremely vague. However, the court added that DNA testing was being sought. "The settled legal position that DNA testing is to be ordered very sparingly and cannot be directed on the basis of allegations such as those that are made in this writ petition," the court said as it refused to grant the prayer.

Delhi High Court Quashes BCI's Decision Refusing Enrolment To South Korean Citizen As Advocate With BCD, Orders Processing Of Application

Title: Daeyoung Jung v. Bar Council of India & Anr.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 462

The Delhi High Court has quashed the Bar Council of India’s decision refusing to consider a South Korean citizen as eligible for enrolment as an advocate with Bar Council of Delhi. The foreign national had moved to India with his parents at the age of 11 and lived here continuously till he graduated from NALSAR University in 2016.

“The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 23.7.2020 is quashed. The Bar Council of India is directed to process the application of the petitioner forthwith in accordance with law,” Justice Yashwant Varma said.

BharatPe v. PhonePe: Delhi High Court Upholds Maintainability Of Letters Patent Appeal In Trade Mark Cancellation Matters

Title: RESILIENT INNOVATIONS PVT. LTD. v. PHONEPE PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 463

The Delhi High Court has allowed the appeals filed by BharatPe from an order dismissing its petitions for cancellation of PhonePe’s trademark.

A division bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Talwant Singh set aside the single judge’s orders dated 11 November 2021.

Delhi High Court Restrains Bodhisatva Charitable Trust From Using Trademark 'Mayo', Grants Interim Relief To US-Based Mayo Foundation

Case Title: Mayo Foundation For Medical Education & Research vs Bodhisatva Charitable Trust & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 464

Granting interim relief to Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research — a subsidiary of US -based charitable organisation Mayo Clinic, the Delhi High Court has restrained Bodhisatva Charitable Trust from using the trademark “Mayo” or any mark or name deceptively similar to it.

The Indian NGO and its associates have been particularly restrained from using names like Mayo Institute Of Medical Sciences, Mayo Medical Centre, Mayo Medical Centre Private Limited, Mayo Hospital, Mayo Clinic, Mayo School Of Nursing, Mayo Pharmacy and Mayo Gastro-Liver Clinic.

102 Kg Heroin Recovery At Attari Check Post: Delhi High Court Grants Bail To Trader, Says He Was Oblivious Of Contraband Hidden In Consignment

Case Title: Vipin Mittal v. NIA

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 465

Observing that prima facie he was used as an intermediary without knowledge of the smuggled contraband, the Delhi High Court has granted bail to the proprietor of Shree Balaji Trading Company in a case where 102.136 and 0.648 kgs of heroin were intercepted in a truck carrying licorice roots (Mulethi) from Afghanistan at the Attari border in Punjab's Amritsar last year.

"On a prima facie assessment ... this Court is of the considered opinion that there were reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner's guilt may not be proved and further there is no material on record to show that he was likely to commit any offence while on bail," said the court, adding the trial in the matter is likely to take some time, and it would not be prudent to keep the petitioner behind bars for an indefinite period, particularly considering his medical condition.

Non-Supply Of Survey Report, Delhi High Court Stays Reassessment Proceedings Against Centre For Policy Research

Case Title: Centre For Policy Research Versus Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 466

The Delhi High Court has stayed the reassessment proceedings against the Centre for Policy Research.

The bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Girish Kathpalia has observed that the entire survey report was not submitted to the petitioner; only the relied-upon portion of the survey report was provided to the petitioner.

The petitioner has assailed the notices dated March 28, 2023, and March 29, 2023, issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Taxpayers Filing Declaration Under SVLDR Scheme Can’t Quantify The Duty Under Indirect Taxes: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Ideal Broadcasting India Pvt. Ltd Versus Union Of India

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 467

The Delhi High Court has held that taxpayers filing declarations under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme Rules, 2019 (SVLDR Scheme) cannot quantify the duty under indirect taxes.

The bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Dharmesh Sharma has observed that in terms of Section 121(r) of the Finance Act, 2019, the word "quantified" means a written communication of the amount of duty payable under indirect tax enactment and that a unilateral quantification by the petitioner does not render the assessee eligible to avail the benefit of the scheme since it was the prerogative of the Department to quantify the amount and not the assessee.

Dept. Initiated Reassessment By Deviating From Prior View Without Any Cogent Reasoning: Delhi High Court Quashes Reassessment Notices

Case Title: Prem Kumar Chopra Versus ACIT

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 468

The Delhi High Court has quashed the reassessment notices on the grounds that the department has initiated reassessment by deviating from prior views without any cogent reasoning.

The bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Girish Kathpalia has observed that the reassessment notice and order suffered from two infirmities, namely that it was proceeded on a view inconsistent with the earlier order despite the facts and circumstances being similar, and the ACIT concerned did not support the subsequent divergent view with reasoning.

Show Cause Notice Bereft Any Specific Allegation, Delhi High Court Quashes GST Registration Suspension Order

Case Title: Fayiz Nangaparambil Versus Union Of India

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 469

The Delhi High Court has held that the Show Cause Notice was short of the necessary requirements as it did not contain any specific allegation.

The bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan has observed that the show cause notice is required to set out the relevant material in order to enable the noticee to meaningfully respond to it.

Trial Courts Cannot Direct Foreign Nationals Be Sent To Detention Centre While Granting Them Bail: Delhi High Court

Title: EMECHERE MADUABUCHKWU v. STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 470

The Delhi High Court has said that the trial courts cannot direct foreign nationals be sent to a detention centre while granting them bail in cases lodged against them here.

“In any event what must be clarified is that a Court or Magistrates or a Sessions Court cannot as part of enlarging foreign national on bail can also direct the said person to be sent to a detention centre. The Court is not competent to pass such a direction when granting bail as has been conclusively held in various decisions,” Justice Anish Dayal said.

Delhi High Court Restrains Over 100 Rogue Websites From Streaming Sony's 'Spider-Man: Across The Spider-Verse'

Case Title: Sony Pictures Animation Inc. vs FLIXHD.CC/ & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 471

In an interim relief to Sony Pictures Animation Inc, the Delhi High Court has restrained several rogue websites from posting and streaming the upcoming film “Spider-Man: Across The Spider-Verse” and “Spider-Man: Into The Spider-Verse”.

"Defendants 1 to 101, as well as all others acting on their behalf, are restrained from posting, streaming, reproducing, distributing or making available to the public, on their websites, or through the internet, in any manner whatsoever, any cinematograph work/content/program in which the plaintiff has copyright, including the films “Spider-Man: Across The Spider- Verse” and “Spider-Man: Into The Spider-Verse”," said the court.

Delhi High Court Dismisses Retired Major General VK Singh's Plea Against CBI FIR Over Publication Of ‘Classified Information’ About RAW In 2007 Book

Title: MAJ GEN. V.K. SINGH (RETD.) v. CBI

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 472

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a plea moved by Major General (retired) V.K. Singh against the FIR registered by CBI alleging that he published some classified and secret information about Research and Analysis Wing in his book authored in 2007 after his retirement.

After retiring from service in 2002, Singh published the book titled 'India's External Intelligence- Secrets of Research and Analysis Wing (RAW)' in June 2007. An FIR was then registered by CBI after which a complaint and police report were filed before the trial court in 2008. The case against Singh was initiated by a Deputy Secretary, Government of India, Cabinet Secretariat.

The complaint was filed against Singh and another individual under the Officials Secrets Act, 1923. The grievance of CBI was that the names of officer, location of various places and recommendations of the GOM etc. were disclosed in the book.