Delhi High Court Weekly Round-Up: November 11 To November 17, 2024

Citations 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1219 to 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1145

NOMINAL INDEX

Prashant Manchanda v. Union of India & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1219

Wikimedia Foundation v. ANI & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1220

Mankind Pharma Limited vs. Aquakind Land LLP & ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1221

Bharat Broadband Network Ltd v. Paramount Communications Ltd 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1222

HR BUILDERS THROUGH GPA HOLDER V. DELHI AGRICULTURAL MARKETING BOARD 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1223

RUDRA BUILDWELL PVT LTD. v. REALWORTH INDIA PVT LTD 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1224

ASHNEER GROVER v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS and other connected matter 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1225

N.S. ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD. versus THE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1226

Adani Enterprises Limited vs. Shri Somnath Fabrics Private Limited 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1227

MANISH SAINI versus GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1228

VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA v. STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1229

M/s Travel2Agent.com & Ors. vs. M/s Spice Jet Ltd. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1230

GAS AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD versus SAW PIPES LTD 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1231

X v. Y 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1232

SMT. REENA DEVI v. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1233

SURESH KUMAR KAKKAR & ANR versus M/S ANSAL PROPERTIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1234

KHALID JAHANGIR QAZI THROUGH HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER MS FARIDA SIDDIQI v. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY & ORS and other connected matter 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1235

Sanjay Bhandari vs. Directorate of Enforcement2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1236

JKR Techno Engineers Pvt Ltd v. JMD Limited 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1237

Inder Pal Singh Gaba vs. National Investigation Agency 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1238

BALAJI STEEL TRADE versus FLUDOR BENIN S.A. AND ORS 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1239

Ms Shubhangi Gupta v. Commissioner Of Customs & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1240

SMT. PROMILA RASTOGI & ORS v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1241

Raffles Education Corporation Ltd vs. State Of NCT Of Delhi & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1242

SH. R.S. MEENA versus NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1243

STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION & ORS. versus AMAN SINGH 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1244

CENTAURUS GREEN ENERGY PRIVATE LIMITED versus RAJSHREE EDUCATIONAL TRUST 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1245

DUSU Elections: Delhi High Court Allows Counting Of Votes On Or Before Nov 26 Provided All Defacement Is Cleaned Up By Candidates

Title: Prashant Manchanda v. Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1219

The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi University to undertake the process of counting of votes for Delhi University Students' Union (DUSU) elections on or before November 26, provided all the sites which were defaced by the contesting candidates are cleaned up and repainted within a week.

A division bench comprising of Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela said that it is the responsibility of the candidates and the current students of DU to ensure that the next batch get to use the varsity's infrastructure in good and clean condition.

ANI Defamation Suit: Delhi HC Closes Wikipedia's Appeal Following Consent Order, Allows It To Serve Summons To Users Who 'Edited' ANI Page

Case Title: Wikimedia Foundation v. ANI & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1220

The Delhi High Court has closed an appeal filed by Wikimedia Foundation, which hosts Wikipedia platform, against a single judge bench's order directing it to disclose subscriber details of three individuals who edited Asian News International (ANI) Wikipedia page.

Mankind v. Aquakind: Delhi High Court Issues Ex-Parte Interim Injunction Against Sale Of Pharma Products With 'KIND' Formative Trademarks

Case title: Mankind Pharma Limited vs. Aquakind Land LLP & ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1221

The Delhi High Court has issued a temporary injunction in favour of Mankind Pharma Limited, against the sale of its medical and pharmaceutical goods with the trademark 'MANKIND' and 'KIND' formative marks.

Mankind Pharma (plaintiff) is a pharmaceutical company and it has registered the trademark 'MANKIND' for various goods and services. Mankind Pharma also uses several trademarks with the suffix 'KIND' for its pharmaceutical goods.

Scope Of Review U/S 37 Is Limited To Ascertaining Compliance With S. 34 Of Arbitration Act: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Bharat Broadband Network Ltd v. Paramount Communications Ltd

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1222

The Delhi High Court bench of Justices Rekha Palli and Saurabh Banerjee affirmed that the Court under section 37 of the Arbitration Act cannot undertake an independent assessment of the merits of the award, and must only ascertain that the exercise of power by the Court under Section 34 has not exceeded the scope of the provision

Inordinate, Unexplained Delay In Passing Award After Conclusion Of Arguments Can Be Ground To Set Aside U/S 34 Of Arbitration Act: Delhi High Court

Case Title: HR BUILDERS THROUGH GPA HOLDER V. DELHI AGRICULTURAL MARKETING BOARD

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1223

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Sachin Datta has held that inordinate and unexplained delay in passing an award from the date of the conclusion of the pleadings can be a ground to set it aside under section 34 of the Arbitration Act. In this case, the award was passed after more than 2 years from the conclusion of the arguments.

Award Cannot Be Set Aside U/S 34 Of Arbitration Act If View Taken By Arbitrator Is A Plausible View: Delhi High Court

Case Title: RUDRA BUILDWELL PVT LTD. v. REALWORTH INDIA PVT LTD

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1224

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Sachin Datta has held that conduct of the parties has to be seen before granting equitable relief for specific performance of the contract. If the conduct of the parties does not demonstrate that the party claiming relief is ready and willing to perform his part of the contract then the relief under the Specific Relief Act cannot be granted. The court in this case refused to set aside the award under section 34 of the Arbitration Act on the ground that the Arbitrator had taken a plausible view based on the facts and circumstances of the case.

Delhi High Court Cancels LOC Against Ashneer Grover, Wife After Quashing Of EOW FIR

Title: ASHNEER GROVER v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS and other connected matter

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1225

The Delhi High Court has ordered cancellation of the look out circular (LOC) issued against former BharatPe Managing Director Ashneer Grover and his wife Madhuri Jain Grover after quashing of Delhi Police's Economic Offences Wing's (EOW) FIR registered last year.

De-Jure Ineligibility To Act As Arbitrator U/S 12(5) Of Arbitration Act Can Be Waived Only By Express Agreement In Writing: Delhi High Court

Case Title: N.S. ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD. versus THE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1226

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Sachin Datta affirmed that de jure ineligibility to act as an arbitrator can only be waived, after dispute having arisen, by the parties by an express agreement in writing under proviso to section 12(5) of the Arbitration Act. The court further observed that this waiver is different from section 4 of the Act which can be waived even by conduct.

Forfeiture Of Earnest Money Deposit Requires Proof Of Actual Loss: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Adani Enterprises Limited vs. Shri Somnath Fabrics Private Limited

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1227

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Sachin Datta has upheld the Arbitral Award wherein the Tribunal had ordered a refund of Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) as the petitioner had failed to prove any actual loss. The court, in light of Sections 73 and 74 of the Indian Contract Act, observed that forfeiture of the EMD requires proof of actual loss.

'Basis For Acquittal Should Be Strictly Looked Into Before Rejection', Delhi High Court Grants Appointment To Candidate As SI

Case Title: MANISH SAINI versus GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1228

A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising of Justices C Hari Shankar and Sudhir Kumar Jain set aside the Order of the Screening Committee cancelling the appointment of a candidate based on an FIR lodged against him. Despite acquittal, the Screening Committee had cancelled the Petitioner's appointment to the Post of SI. The Bench held that the Screening Committee ought to have gone through the judgement of the Court that acquitted the Petitioner in order to determine the basis on which the Petitioner was acquitted.

Delhi High Court Orders Release Of Life Convict 26 Years After Incarceration, Calls For 'Deeper Consideration' In SRB Decisions

Title: VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA v. STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1229

The Delhi High Court has ordered release of a murder convict serving life imprisonment 26 years after his incarceration by quashing the decision of Sentence Review Board (SRB) rejecting his plea for premature release by calling it arbitrary, irrational and illogical.

Arbitral Award Without Rationale For Damages Is Ex Facie Contrary To Settled Law, Can Be Set Aside: Delhi High Court

Case Title: M/s Travel2Agent.com & Ors. vs. M/s Spice Jet Ltd.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1230

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Sachin Datta has observed that any award of damages, on the touch stone of Section 73 of the Indian Contract Act, must be predicated on actual loss suffered. The court set aside the award for not disclosing the rationale for damages and, on this count, held that the award was ex facie contrary to settled law and in manifest disregard of the material/evidence on record.

Multi-Clause Contracts Should Be Interpreted So That A View On Any Particular Clause Doesn't Violate Another Part Of The Contract: Delhi HC

Case Title: GAS AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD versus SAW PIPES LTD

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1231

The Delhi High Court bench of Justices Vibhhu Bakhru and Sachin Datta affirmed that the explicit terms of a contract are always the final word with regard to the intention of the parties. The multi-clause contract inter se the parties has, thus, to be understood and interpreted in a manner that any view, on a particular clause of the contract, should not do violence to another part of the contract. In this case, the court while hearing appeal under section 37 of the Arbitration Act upheld the impugned judgment passed by the court under section 34 of the Arbitration Act.

Delhi High Court Issues Directions To Family Courts For Dissolution Of Muslim Marriage On Basis Of Talaq Nama, Mubarat Agreement, Etc.

Title: X v. Y

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1232

The Delhi High Court has passed directions for guidance of family courts in the national capital while dealing with any petition filed under Section 7 of the Family Courts Act for dissolution of marriage through extra-judicial divorce under the Muslim Personal Law.

A division bench comprising of Justice Rekha Palli and Justice Saurabh Banerjee directed that the Family Court, after issuing notice to the respondent, will record the statements of both parties.

Delhi High Court Presumes Man Dead Who Went 'Missing' During COVID-19 From LNJP Hospital, Grants ₹5 Lakh Compensation To Wife

Title: SMT. REENA DEVI v. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE & ORS.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1233

Presuming a man dead who purportedly went missing during the second wave of COVID-19 pandemic from Lok Nayak Jai Prakash (LNJP Hospital, the Delhi High Court has recently granted Rs. 5 lakh ex-gratia compensation to his wife.

Scope Of Examination U/S 11 Of Arbitration Act Confined To Existence Of Arbitration Agreement: Delhi High Court

Case Title: SURESH KUMAR KAKKAR & ANR versus M/S ANSAL PROPERTIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED & ANR.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1234

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Sachin Datta affirmed that when a non-signatory person or entity is arrayed as a party at Section 8 or Section 11 stage of the Arbitration Act, the referral court should prima facie determine the validity or existence of the arbitration agreement, as the case may be, and complex issue like whether the non-signatory is bound by the arbitration agreement must be left for the Arbitral Tribunal to decide.

What Legal Protections Should Be Granted To 'Blacklisted' OCI Cardholders Allegedly Involved In Anti-National Activities? Delhi HC Answers

Title: KHALID JAHANGIR QAZI THROUGH HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER MS FARIDA SIDDIQI v. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY & ORS and other connected matter

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1235

The Delhi High Court has explained the legal protections afforded to Overseas Citizens of India (OCI) cardholders against whom backlisting orders are issued in circumstances involving allegations of anti-national activities against them.

Delhi High Court Denies Relief To Arms Dealer Sanjay Bhandari In Challenge To Fugitive Economic Offender Notice

Case title: Sanjay Bhandari vs. Directorate of Enforcement

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1236

The Delhi High Court has rejected the petition of arms dealer Sanjay Bhandari, accused of tax evasion and money laundering, challenging a Special Court's summoning order in relation to the Enforcement Directorate's declaration of him as a 'Fugitive Economic Offender'.

Time Spent In Bona Fide Proceedings Before Court Without Jurisdiction To Be Excluded When Considering Objection On Limitation In S.11 Plea: Delhi HC

Case Title: JKR Techno Engineers Pvt Ltd v. JMD Limited

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1237

The Delhi High Court bench comprising of Justice Subramonium Prasad, while hearing a Section 11 petition, has held that the petitioner's claim cannot be treated as dead one simply because they spent time on bona fide court proceedings before a court without jurisdiction.

Delhi High Court Rejects Inderpal Gaba's Challenge To NIA Arrest & Remand Over Protest At Indian High Commission In London

Case title: Inder Pal Singh Gaba vs. National Investigation Agency

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1238

The Delhi High Court has rejected the plea to Inder Pal Singh Gaba, allegedly involved in the protest at the High Commission of India, London, United Kingdom, challenging his arrest by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) and seeking his release from custody.

Court U/S 45 Of Arbitration Act Must Refer Parties To Arbitration Unless Agreement Is Void Or Inoperative: Delhi High Court

Case Title: BALAJI STEEL TRADE versus FLUDOR BENIN S.A. AND ORS

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1239

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma affirmed that Section 45 of the Arbitration Act casts a statutory mandate on Courts to refer parties to an arbitration agreement to arbitration. The only limited exception carved in Section 45 is if the Court is of the prima facie opinion that the arbitration agreement is (a) null and void; or (b) in-operative; or (c) incapable of being performed. Unless such grounds are made out, the Court has no discretion but to refer the parties to arbitration.

[Confiscation] No Provision For Waiver Of Show Cause Notice U/S 124 Of Customs Act: Delhi High Court

Case title: Ms Shubhangi Gupta v. Commissioner Of Customs & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1240

The Delhi High Court recently came to the rescue of an OCI cardholder whose luxury watch was confiscated by the Customs Department when she landed at IGI Airport, without issuance of any show cause notice under Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Delhi HC Orders DDA To Pay ₹11 Lakh To Family Of Man Who Died In Balcony Collapse, Flags Structural Failures & Negligence In Maintenance

Title: SMT. PROMILA RASTOGI & ORS v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1241

The Delhi High Court has ordered the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) to pay compensation of over Rs. 11 lakh to a woman and her minor sons, after her husband died after a balcony in their DDA flat collapsed 24 years ago.

Justice Dharmesh Sharma pulled up the DDA for negligence and said that it had a "continuing obligation" to ensure the flat infrastructure's "durability and longevity post-allotment".

Mere Breach Of Contract Cannot Constitute Cheating Unless Dishonest Intention Is Shown At Beginning Of Transaction: Delhi High Court

Case title: Raffles Education Corporation Ltd vs. State Of NCT Of Delhi & Anr.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1242

The Delhi High Court has observed that a mere breach of contract does not give rise to criminal prosecution of cheating unless a fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown at the beginning of the transaction.

In doing so the high court upheld the sessions court's order which had quashed the summons issued by the magistrate to the Chairman and MD of educational technology company Educomp and its associated persons in alleged case of cheating.

'Additional Charge Of Deputy Commissioner Does Not Entitle Additional Deputy Commissioner To Pay Scale Of DC', Delhi High Court Reiterates

Case Title: SH. R.S. MEENA versus NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1243

A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising of Justices C Hari Shankar and Sudhir Kumar Jain dismissed a Petition challenging the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal upholding that the assignment of 'current duty charge' of the Post of DC would not entitle the Petitioner holding the Post of ADC to the pay scale as that of the DC. The Bench reiterated that the Order conferring additional charge on the Petitioner did not formally appoint him to hold full charge of the duties of DC and thus he would not be entitled to the pay-scale of the post he held the additional charge of.

'Opinion Of Dermatologist Cannot Be Ignored', Delhi High Court Directs Fresh Examination Of Candidate By Review Medical Board

Case Title: STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION & ORS. versus AMAN SINGH

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1244

A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising of Justices C Hari Shankar and Sudhir Kumar Jain upheld the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal that directed the Staff Selection Committee to constitute a fresh Medical Board to re-examine the Respondent for determining whether he was fit for duties or not. The Court held that the Respondent was declared fit by the Dermatologist whose opinion was sought by the Review Medical Board and thus ignoring such opinion and declaring the Respondent unfit was not justified.

Pre-Requirement Of Conciliation Before Invoking Arbitration Can't Prevent Filing Of Application U/S 11 Of Arbitration Act: Delhi High Court

Case Title: CENTAURUS GREEN ENERGY PRIVATE LIMITED versus RAJSHREE EDUCATIONAL TRUST

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1245

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad has held that pre requirement of conciliation in an arbitration clause before invoking the arbitration cannot be a bar to file an application under section 11 of the Arbitration Act seeking appointment of an Arbitrator.