Citations 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1115 to 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1141NOMINAL INDEXMadhu Sudan Sharma v. Omaxe Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1115 Northern India Paint Colour and Varnish Co. LLP v. Sushil Chaudhary 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1116 Madhu Sudan Sharma v. Omaxe Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1117 Babu Lal and Anr. v. Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd. and Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Del)...
Citations 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1115 to 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1141
NOMINAL INDEX
Madhu Sudan Sharma v. Omaxe Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1115
Northern India Paint Colour and Varnish Co. LLP v. Sushil Chaudhary 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1116
Madhu Sudan Sharma v. Omaxe Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1117
Babu Lal and Anr. v. Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd. and Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1118
Raghunath Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. Anant Raj Limited 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1119
Union of India & Anr. v. Bharat Serums and Vaccines Limited 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1120
SH. MANISH AGGARWAL v. THE ESTATE OFFICER & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1121
Enviornics Trust Versus The Dept. Commissioner Of Income Tax LiveLaw (Del) 1122
Skypower Solar India Pvt Ltd v. Sterling and Wilson International FZE 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1123
RUHI ARORA v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1124
DR ZAHEER AHMED v. PREETI SUDAN SECRETARY,UNION OF INDIA & ORS and other connected matters 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1125
PREMAKUMARI v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1126
ST+ART INDIA FOUNDATION & ANR. v. ACKO GENERAL INSURANCE 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1127
Maps Creation Private Limited v. M/s English Premium & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1128
MOHD ARSLAN V/s GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1129
ArcelorMittal Nippon Steel India Limited v. GAIL (India) Limited 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1130
Association Of Technical Textiles Manufacturers And Processors & Anr. Versus UOI 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1131
AMIT ARORA v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1132
MR. AMANDEEP SINGH DHALL v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT and other connected matter 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1133
MOLOY GHATAK v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1134
Ganesh Dass Khanna Versus ITO 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1135
Delhi Gymkhana Club Versus Commissioner (Luxury Tax), New Delhi & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1136
Saraswati Petrochem Pvt. Ltd. Versus Income Tax Officer 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1137
INTER IKEA SYSTEMS BV v. IKEA LUXURY FURNITURE 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1138
ANJALI VAID AND ORS v. ADARSH WORLD SCHOOL AND ORS and other connected matters 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1139
MR. BHUPINDER SINGH & ORS v. STATE & OTHERS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1140
BENNETT COLEMAN AND COMPANY LIMITED v. E ENTERTAINMENT TELEVISION LLC AND ANR 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1141
Case Title: Madhu Sudan Sharma v. Omaxe Ltd
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1115
The Delhi High Court has held that a party cannot be deemed to have waived off its right to arbitration merely because it continued to contest the suit when it had specifically raised objection to the maintainability of the suit due to the presence of the arbitration agreement.
The bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar held that when a party takes a specific objection predicated on Section 8 in the application under Order XXXVII Rule 3(5) seeking leave to defend the suit and that objection, thereafter, is reiterated in the written statement and arguments. It cannot be said that the party has waived the right to arbitration.
Case Title: Northern India Paint Colour and Varnish Co. LLP v. Sushil Chaudhary
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1116
Justice Amit Bansal of the Delhi High Court recently upheld summoning orders passed in a complaint case u/s 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, observing that evidence need not be gone into by the MM while conducting inquiry u/s 202 Cr.P.C. read with Section 145 of NI Act.
“At the stage of issuance of summons, for the purpose of Section 202 of the CrPC read with section 145 of the NI Act, the learned MM is only required to examine whether the basic ingredients of an offence under Section 138 of the NI Act have been prima facie made out by the complainant and supported by the pre-summoning evidence led on behalf of the complainant.”
Case Title: Madhu Sudan Sharma v. Omaxe Ltd
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1117
The Delhi High Court has held that once a party has duly taken objection to the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the suit due to the presence of the arbitration clause between the parties in its written statement, it would be sufficient compliance of Section 8 of the A&C Act and there is no need for a separate application.
The bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar held that once an arbitration clause has been extracted by a party in its written submission to object to the jurisdiction of the Court, the mere fact that the party did not separately request that the dispute between the parties be referred to arbitration, would be of little consequence.
Case Title: Babu Lal and Anr. v. Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd. and Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1118
A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court has reiterated that a party interested in the dispute cannot unilaterally appoint an Arbitrator, and if any Award is passed as a result of such unilateral appointment, the same would be a nullity.
The Bench, comprising Justices Sanjeev Sachdeva and Manoj Jain, noted that the respondents’ nomination of the Arbitrator was without reference to the court in terms of Section 11 of A&C Act.
Case Title: Raghunath Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. Anant Raj Limited
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1119
A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court recently allowed restoration of an arbitral award, noting that it was not within the scope of the Single Judge u/s 34 of A&C Act to re-interpret the contract between the parties and substitute the finding of the Arbitrator’s despite it being plausible and well-reasoned.
The court referred to Ssangyong Engineering and Construction Co. Ltd. v. NHAI and said:
“…a change that has been brought in by the Amendment Act, 2015 is that the construction of the terms of a contract is primarily for an arbitrator to decide, unless the arbitrator construes the contract in a manner that no fair-minded or reasonable person would; in short that the arbitrator's view is not even a possible view to take”.
Case Title: Union of India & Anr. v. Bharat Serums and Vaccines Limited
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1120
A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court recently held that the government only has power to “monitor” the maximum retail price (MRP) of non-scheduled formulations, and not to fix or revise it. It was added that in case there is an increase in the MRP beyond this limit, the consequences are prescribed in Para 20 itself.
The judgment came to be passed in a batch of LPAs filed by pharmaceutical companies, bringing into question interpretation of Para 20 of the Drugs (Price Control) Order, 2013 (DPCO 2013), which deals with monitoring of non-scheduled formulations’ MRP.
Delhi High Court Rejects Interim Plea To Reopen Roshanara Club Sealed By DDA
Title: SH. MANISH AGGARWAL v. THE ESTATE OFFICER & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1121
The Delhi High Court has rejected an application seeking opening of city’s 100-year-old Roshanara Club, which was sealed and locked by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) in September.
A division bench of then Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma (now elevated to the Supreme Court) and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela dismissed the interim application filed in the petition moved by a member of the club Manish Aggarwal.
Case Title: Enviornics Trust Versus The Dept. Commissioner Of Income Tax
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1122
The Delhi High Court has upheld the reassessment proceedings against a trust for wrongful application of foreign contribution, which was against the objective of the trust.
The bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela has observed that the AO based its opinion on tangible and concrete information in the form of the petitioner’s trust deed and the statement of the managing trustee that certain identified foreign contributions received by the petitioner were utilized for a purpose divergent from its object as disclosed in the trust deed. The wrongful application of the exemption availed under Section 11 or Section 12 of the Income Tax Act in relation to such funds would undoubtedly result in the AO forming the subjective satisfaction that the wrongly availed exemption vis-à-vis foreign contributions escaped income for the purpose of assessment under the Income Tax Act.
Case Title: Skypower Solar India Pvt Ltd v. Sterling and Wilson International FZE
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1123
The Delhi High Court held that the Court exercising powers under Section 9 of the A&C Act would not order furnishing of Bank Guarantee (BG) to secure the claims of a party pending the arbitration proceedings, unless it shown that the order party is alienating its assets or acting in a manner that would frustrate the enforcement of the Arbitral Award.
The bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Amit Mahajan held that an order under Section 9 directing furnishing bank guarantee to secure the claims is akin to an order of attachment before judgment as provided under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of CPC. It held that the Court under Section 9 of the A&C Act is not unduly bound by texts of CPC, however, it cannot pass any order in disregard to the principles of CPC.
Pendency Of Vigilance Inquiry No Impediment To Travel Abroad: Delhi High Court
Title: RUHI ARORA v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1124
The Delhi High Court has observed that pendency of a vigilance inquiry cannot be an impediment for an individual to travel abroad.
Justice Subramonium Prasad made the observation while granting relief to a woman, accused in a corruption case, to travel abroad from November 29 to December 14 for her honeymoon.
Title: DR ZAHEER AHMED v. PREETI SUDAN SECRETARY,UNION OF INDIA & ORS and other connected matters
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1125
The Delhi High Court on Thursday directed the Union Government to frame within eight weeks the policy to regulate online sale of drugs or medicines.
A division bench comprising of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Mini Pushkarna said that if the policy is not framed within the stipulated time, the concerned Joint Secretary dealing with the subject shall remain present in court on the next date of hearing.
Title: PREMAKUMARI v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1126
The Central Government has informed the Delhi High Court that the Supreme Court in Yemen on November 13 had dismissed the appeal of Malayali nurse Nimisha Priya against the death sentence imposed on her for murdering a Yemeni national. The final decision now lies with the President of the Yemen, the Centre added.
The Court was hearing a writ petition filed by the mother of Nimisha Priya seeking permission to travel to Yemen to negotiate with the victim’s family by paying blood money.
Title: ST+ART INDIA FOUNDATION & ANR. v. ACKO GENERAL INSURANCE
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1127
The Delhi High Court has directed insurance company Acko General Insurance to take down its social media posts using a mural titled “Humanity” in a copyright infringement suit filed by St+art India, an organization that works on art projects in public spaces.
As the insurance company agreed to take down the social media posts and other online postings using the mural, Justice Prathiba M Singh said:
“…accordingly, it is directed that the Defendant shall take down the said listings within 72 hours. Specific URLs displaying the said mural on the Defendant’s posts, if any, may also be communicated to the Defendant by the Plaintiffs. The above order shall be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of both parties.”
Case Title: Maps Creation Private Limited v. M/s English Premium & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1128
Justice Tushar Rao Gedela of the Delhi High Court recently accepted a litigant’s unconditional apology for failing to produce the court’s stay order before the District Judge at the time of listing for final arguments.
“…the mistake is definitely a serious one since order of the higher Court ought to have been necessarily communicated to the Court upon which the said order would have been binding,” the court said.
Title: MOHD ARSLAN V/s GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1129
The Delhi High Court on Friday pulled up the Municipal Corporation Of Delhi (MCD) for its failure to take possession of a public park near city’s Jama Masjid, observing that a statutory authority cannot lose possession of a public park.
A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Mini Pushkarna was informed by MCD’s counsel that the Shahi Imam or Jama Masjid authorities are allegedly in illegal possession and have locked the park in question.
Case Title: ArcelorMittal Nippon Steel India Limited v. GAIL (India) Limited
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1130
The Delhi High Court recently denied urgent interim relief to leading steel manufacturer-ArcelorMittal Nippon Steel (petitioner) in a claim against GAIL India Ltd., observing that the scope of enquiry u/s 9 of A&C Act was limited to prima facie examination of the issue, which was not established in the petitioner’s favour.
The petitioner had approached the court seeking stay over a Notice issued by GAIL, statedly to terminate the LNG Sale and Purchase Agreement (LSPA) entered by the two. It further sought directions for GAIL to deliver LNG in accordance with the LSPA.
Case Title: Association Of Technical Textiles Manufacturers And Processors & Anr. Versus UOI
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1131
The Delhi High Court has held that the Tax Research Unit (TRU) cannot issue clarification regarding the classification of polypropylene woven and non-woven bags under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.
The bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Dharmesh Sharma has observed that the department could not point out any provision of the CGST Act, in terms of which the TRU could be said to have been clothed with the authority or jurisdiction to render a clarification with respect to the classification of goods and articles. The Board appears to be the sole recipient of the authority. There is no authority vested in the TRU to issue the clarification.
Title: AMIT ARORA v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1132
The Delhi High Court on Friday allowed businessman Amit Arora, accused in the PMLA case related to the excise policy scam, to interact with her 16 years old daughter suffering from Paranoid Schizophrenia through video-conferencing for half an hour twice a week and wished her “complete psychological recovery” as well as a “life time of positive mental health.”
While Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma rejected the interim bail plea moved by Arora on the ground of his daughter’s mental health condition, the court made arrangement for VC meetings and said that the psychological injury that some children may suffer in such cases need healing.
Title: MR. AMANDEEP SINGH DHALL v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT and other connected matter
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1133
The Delhi High Court has refused to extend the duration of medical treatment of businessman and director of Brindco Sales Private Limited, Amandeep Singh Dhall, who is an accused in the excise policy scam case.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma dismissed the pleas moved by Dhall in both the cases registered by Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and Enforcement Directorate (ED) seeking extension of duration of his medical examination and treatment at Indian Spinal Injuries Centre, pursuant to order passed by the court.
Coal Scam: Delhi High Court Refuses To Quash ED Summons To West Bengal Law Minister Moloy Ghatak
Title: MOLOY GHATAK v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1134
The Delhi High Court on Friday refused to restrain the Enforcement Directorate (ED) from summoning West Bengal Law Minister Moloy Ghatak in future in connection with the coal smuggling case.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed that it was rather surprising that Ghatak himself had not appeared before the ED on 11 occasions out of 12 to give the information that was being sought by the probe agency.
Concealment Of Income Above Rs.50 Lakhs, Extended Period Of Limitation Would Apply: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Ganesh Dass Khanna Versus ITO
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1135
The Delhi High Court has held that an extended period of 10 years would apply in serious tax evasion cases where there was evidence of concealment of income above Rs. 50 lakhs.
The bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Girish Kathpalia has observed that, as per the Memorandum, in “normal cases”, no notice was intended to be issued if 3 years had elapsed from the end of the relevant AY. Notice, beyond the prescribed 3 years from the end of the relevant AY, could be issued only in a few specific cases. One such example, which is given in the bill, is where the AO was in possession of evidence that escaped income amounted to Rs. 50 lakhs or more.
Delhi Gymkhana Club Exigible To Tax Under Delhi Tax On Luxuries Act, 1996: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Delhi Gymkhana Club Versus Commissioner (Luxury Tax), New Delhi & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1136
The Delhi High Court has held that Delhi Gymkhana Club is exigible to tax under the Delhi Tax on Luxuries Act, 1996.
The bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Ravinder Dudeja has observed that the Delhi Tax on Luxuries Act, 1996, as it stood during the assessment period in question, extended its application also to the provision of residential accommodation in a club and, in any case, did not at the relevant time exclude the provisioning of accommodation to members of a club from the expression “luxury”. In fact, the word “luxury” did not even exist in the statute book prior to its insertion by virtue of the 2012 Amendment Act.
Case Title: Saraswati Petrochem Pvt. Ltd. Versus Income Tax Officer
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1137
The Delhi High Court has held that AO did not have the tangible material on record that could have persuaded him to form the belief that income, otherwise chargeable to tax, had escaped assessment.
The bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Girish Kathpalia, the AO, did not employ diligence while triggering the reassessment proceedings against the petitioner or assessee. Because AO realized that the information received by him from ITO (Nahan) concerned the preceding period, he attempted to commence reassessment proceedings under Section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act by simply comparing the “source of funds” reflected under various heads in the balance sheets for the preceding AY and the AY in issue.
Title: INTER IKEA SYSTEMS BV v. IKEA LUXURY FURNITURE
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1138
The Delhi High Court has restrained a Kerala based furniture store “Ikea Luxury Furniture” from using the mark “Ikea” either as a trademark or trade name on hoardings, including stationery, banners, handbills, and promotional materials.
Justice Prathiba M Singh was dealing with a trademark infringement suit filed by multinational furniture company, Inter IKEA Systems BV. It sought protection of its mark ‘IKEA’.
Title: ANJALI VAID AND ORS v. ADARSH WORLD SCHOOL AND ORS and other connected matters
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1139
The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi Government to constitute a High Powered Committee to supervise implementation of recommendations prescribed in 6th and 7th Central Pay Commission (CPC) regarding payment of salaries and arrears to staff of private unaided schools and recognized private unaided minority schools in the national capital.
Justice Chandra Dhari Singh ordered that the Committee shall be constituted at Central and Zonal levels.
Title: MR. BHUPINDER SINGH & ORS v. STATE & OTHERS
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1140
The Delhi High Court has observed that only where it is found that there are substantial changes sought to be introduced to a Will by cuttings and overwriting on it, it can be open for the Court to conclude that the Will is suspect and has to be rejected.
Justice Rekha Palli observed that the effect of cuttings and overwriting in a Will would always depend on the facts and circumstances of each case.
Title: BENNETT COLEMAN AND COMPANY LIMITED v. E ENTERTAINMENT TELEVISION LLC AND ANR
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1141
The Delhi High Court has ruled that its Intellectual Property Rights Division Rules, 2022, do not contain any provision which bars taking additional documents on record after reply or counter-statement is filed by the respondent to the rectification petition.
“The IPD Rules do not contain any provision which proscribes taking of additional documents on record, unlike the Original Side Rules, which does contain such a provision, in Rule 147 in Chapter VII,” Justice C Hari Shankar held.