Citations 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1063 to 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1114NOMINAL INDEXMINOR L THR GUARDIAN J v. STATE & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1063Commissioner of Customs Versus ICS Cargo 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1064HARI SINGH v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1065SMC Comtrade Ltd. Versus ACIT 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1066NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. v. RAVI PRAKASH MISHRA & ANR....
Citations 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1063 to 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1114
NOMINAL INDEX
MINOR L THR GUARDIAN J v. STATE & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1063
Commissioner of Customs Versus ICS Cargo 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1064
HARI SINGH v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1065
SMC Comtrade Ltd. Versus ACIT 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1066
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. v. RAVI PRAKASH MISHRA & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1067
X v. Y 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1068
Intercontinental Great Brands LLC v. Parle Product Private Limited 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1069
VEERJI RESTAURANT PRIVATE LIMITED v. ANKIT KUMAR & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1070
SUNITA KEJRIWAL v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) AND ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1071
Juniper Hotels Private Limited v. Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission and Anr 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1072
DCM Ltd. v. M/s. Aggarwal Developers Pvt. Ltd and Ors 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1073
AZAD MARKET RESIDENTS WELFARE ASSOCIATION (REGD) v. MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS AND ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1074
SUTIRTHA DUTTA v. MINISTRY OF HEALTH AFFAIRS AND FAMILY WELFARE & OTHERS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1075
ALL INDIA FEDERATION OF TAX PRACTIONERS v. UOI AND ANR 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1076
Sushant Kaushik v. State 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1077
SHANTANU v. THE STATE 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1078
Mangement of Rao Mohar v. Sumit Tandon & Anr 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1079
IDFC First Bank Limited v. Union of India and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1080
ANR International Pvt Ltd v. Mahavir Singhal 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1081
BT (India) Private Limited Versus UOI 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1082
National Projects Constructions Corporation Ltd v. AAC India Pvt Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1083
Ms. Sabiha Parveen v. Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1084
ANJANA GOSAIN v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT AND ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1085
MAX HEALTHCARE INSTITUTE LIMITED v. MAXI CURE HOSPITALS & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1086
Aryan Kumar (Minor) through Father Ravinder Kumar v. Kendriya Vidyalaya & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1087
S. v. State of GNCT Delhi & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1088
NILKAMAL CRATES AND CONTANERS & ANR. v. MS. REENA RAJPAL & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1089
Viridian Development Managers Pvt Ltd v. RPS Infrastructure Limited 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1090
DR. AJAY PAL v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1091
VIJAY KUMAR AGARWAL v. PARVEEN SINGH AND ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1092
HDA Flavours Pvt Ltd v. Daddy’s Hospitality Pvt Ltd. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1093
GOPI NISHA MALLAH v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1094
MS. KANIKA GUPTA MINOR THROUGH GUARDIAN AND FATHER SHRI AMIT GUPTA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1095
Tata Steel Limited Versus DCIT 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1096
Indian Flexible Intermediate Bulk Container Association v. Director General of Foreign Trade 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1097
Chhath Pooja Sangharsh Samiti & Anr. v. Govt. of NCT Delhi & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1098
ATC Telecom Infrastructure Pvt Ltd v. BSNL 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1099
BHAVREEN KANDHARI v. SHRI C. D. SINGH AND ORS. and other connected matters 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1100
DARGHA NAJEEBUDDIN FIRDOUSI v. DELHI DEVLOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1101
Shreyash Retail Private Ltd Versus Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax TDS Circle 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1102
COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. SHAHJAHANABAD REDEVLOPMENT CORPORATION (SRDC), GNCTD & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1103
VIJAY KUMAR PANDEY AND ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1104
Rashmee Kansal v. The State and Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1105
COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1106
SAKH ALAM @ SHEKH ALAM v. THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT, DELHI) & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1107
Riddhima Singh through her father Shailendra Kumar Singh v. Central Board of Secondary Education through its Chairman & Ors 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1108
COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. State and other connected matters 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1109
COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1110
GOVIND SARAN SHARMA v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1111
COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. GNCTD AND ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1112
Bharti Airtel v. Jamshed Khan 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1113
VINEET SURELIA v. THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1114
Title: MINOR L THR GUARDIAN J v. STATE & ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1063
The Delhi High Court has directed the investigating officers of Delhi Police and medical board to explain the pros and cons of medical termination of pregnancy to the rape victims and her guardians (in case of minors) in mother tongue, be it Hindi or English language.
“This Court orders that henceforth, in cases of medical termination of pregnancy in rape cases, the pros and cons of the medical termination of pregnancy will be explained in Hindi wherever the victim and her guardian in case of a minor victim understands Hindi, or English where they understand the said language,” Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said.
Delhi High Court Quashes Suspension Of License, Issued To Customs House Agent, Finding Order Illegal
Case Title: Commissioner of Customs Versus ICS Cargo
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1064
The Delhi High Court has held that there was proper verification on the part of the Customs House Agent (CHA) with regard to the genuineness of the Importer-Exporter Code (IEC) as well as GSTIN.
Title: HARI SINGH v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1065
The Delhi High Court has said that the application for premature release of convicts who have undergone long incarceration period must not be dealt with in mechanical and clerical manner.
Justice Saurabh Banerjee observed that when the convict has undergone substantial and long period of incarceration, the eventual purpose of imprisonment, including the most serious offences, is reformative and not retributive.
Case Title: SMC Comtrade Ltd. Versus ACIT
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1066
The Delhi High Court has held that once the return has been found to be valid and only a defect within the meaning of Section 139(9) of the Income Tax Act has been found, interest cannot be levied.
Title: NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. v. RAVI PRAKASH MISHRA & ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1067
The Delhi High Court has observed that an insurance company is liable to meet the contractual liability where it undertakes to pay compensation on the death or injury suffered by the owner of the insured vehicle.
Justice Navin Chawla said that as a general rule, the Insurance Company cannot be made liable to pay compensation under Section 163A or Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for the death or the bodily injury suffered by the owner or borrower or the driver of the insured vehicle.
Title: X v. Y
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1068
The Delhi High Court has said that the wife making serious and unsubstantiated allegations against the husband and waging a legal war against him by implicating him and his family members amounts to extreme cruelty towards spouse.
A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna set aside a family court order and granted divorce to a husband on the ground of cruelty by the wife under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Case Title: Intercontinental Great Brands LLC v. Parle Product Private Limited
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1069
The Delhi High Court recently rejected an application filed by “OREO” proprietor under Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act seeking permission to initiate rectification proceedings w.r.t. Parle’s “FABIO” mark registered in Class 30 (biscuits, cookies, etc.).
It opined that for Section 124(1) to apply in a case where the plaintiff seeks to challenge the validity of the defendant’s mark, “firstly, the defendant must raise a Section 30(2)(e) defence by citing the registration of its mark as a defence to infringement and, if the defendant does so, the plaintiff must plead invalidity of the defendant’s mark”.
Title: VEERJI RESTAURANT PRIVATE LIMITED v. ANKIT KUMAR & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1070
The Delhi High Court has held a Meerut based restaurant owner guilty of disobeying a last court order which restrained him from having any online listing on Zomato or Swiggy using the name “Veer Ji Malai Chaap Wale” by “subverting” the injunction and using a different name “Veer Di Malai Chaap Wale.”
“There was a specific direction to the defendant to remove the online listings from Zomato and Swiggy using the id VEER JI MALAI CHAAP WALE. The defendant has, while removing the said id, engineered a stratagem by which orders can be placed on the same outlet using the new id VEER DI MALAI CHAAP WALE though no such outlet bearing the said name is present at the address,” Justice C Hari Shankar observed.
Title: SUNITA KEJRIWAL v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) AND ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1071
The Delhi High Court has stayed a trial court order issuing summons to Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal's wife Sunita Kejriwal in a case alleging she holds two voter IDs.
Justice Amit Bansal issued notice on Sunita Kejriwal’s plea and stayed the trial court order till February 01, 2024, the next date of hearing.
Case Title: Juniper Hotels Private Limited v. Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission and Anr
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1072
A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising the Chief Justice and Justice Sanjeev Narula recently dismissed a challenge brought against increase in Renewable Purchase Obligations (RPO) of Open Access Consumers and imposition of additional surcharges by DERC.
“...the fixation of tariffs through subordinate legislation is within the commission's purview, and no manifest arbitrariness has been demonstrated to call this decision into question”, it said.
Case Title: DCM Ltd. v. M/s. Aggarwal Developers Pvt. Ltd and Ors
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1073
A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justices Manmohan and Mini Pushkarna on Tuesday dismissed an appeal filed by DCM Ltd. u/s 37 of the A&C Act, refusing to re-examine evidence in view of the limited scope of the provision.
The appeal by DCM Ltd. impugned a judgement by Single Bench of the court, whereby its challenge to an Arbitral Award u/s 34 A&C Act was dismissed.
Regularly Monitor Azad Market To Identify Violators Of Fire Norms: Delhi High Court To MCD
Title: AZAD MARKET RESIDENTS WELFARE ASSOCIATION (REGD) v. MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS AND ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1074
The Delhi High Court has directed the Municipal Corporation of Delhi to conduct regular monitoring of Azad Market area in the national capital to ensure that the violators of fire norms are identified and referred to the Fire Prevention Wing.
“In this regard, the MCD shall endeavor to conduct regular monitoring of the Subject Area [Azad Market] to ensure that persons found violating the Fire Norms are promptly identified and referred to the Fire Prevention Wing under Rule 34 of the Delhi Fire Rules,” a division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela said.
Delhi High Court Refuses To Entertain Plea Against Prohibition On Carrying E-Cigarettes On Aircrafts
Title: SUTIRTHA DUTTA v. MINISTRY OF HEALTH AFFAIRS AND FAMILY WELFARE & OTHERS
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1075
The Delhi High Court has refused to entertain a petition challenging the prohibition on carrying e-cigarettes on aircrafts.
After Justice Subramonium Prasad hinted on dismissing the petition with a “six figure cost”, the counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sutirtha Dutta, withdrew the plea.
The court allowed the withdrawal with a liberty to Dutta to make a representation to the Union Government on the issue.
Title: ALL INDIA FEDERATION OF TAX PRACTIONERS v. UOI AND ANR
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1076
The Delhi High Court has asked the Union Government to take appropriate measures for filling up all the posts of Income Tax Commissioner (Appeals) lying vacant, observing that it would greatly assist in disposals of the pending appeals.
“The Union of India may also consider increasing the sanctioned strength of Commissioner (Appeals) substantially at least to the extent of 570 of such posts, to achieve the aims and objects of the Central Action Plan which is formulated every year,” a division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela ordered.
Case Title: Sushant Kaushik v. State
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1077
Justice Saurabh Banerjee of the Delhi High Court recently granted anticipatory bail to a 20-year-old college student accused of raping his professor, noting that the prosecutrix not only chose to enter a relationship with the applicant on her own, but also to continue with the same for over a year.
“All the aforesaid show the love, care and affection, the prosecutrix had for the applicant … Prima facie, it seems that she was in a relationship with the applicant out of choice and desire rather out of compulsion or force”, the court said.
Simple Touch Not ‘Manipulation’ For Penetrative Sexual Assault Under POCSO Act: Delhi High Court
Title: SHANTANU v. THE STATE
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1078
The Delhi High Court has ruled that a simple act of touch cannot be considered as manipulation for the offence of penetrative sexual assault under Section 3(c) of the POCSO Act.
Section 3(c) of the POCSO Act states that a person is said to commit "penetrative sexual assault" if he manipulates any part of the child’s body so as to cause penetration into the vagina, urethra, anus or any other body part or makes the child to do so with him or any other person.
Case Title: Mangement of Rao Mohar v. Sumit Tandon & Anr
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1079
In a relief to teachers of Rao Manohar Singh Memorial Sr. Secondary School, a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising the Chief Justice and Justice Sanjeev Narula today upheld the order of a Single Bench and directed reinstatement in service of the respondent-teachers.
Notably, relying on Kathuria Public School v. Director of Education and Anr., the appellant, a private unaided school, had contended that it was not required to obtain approval from Director of Education for terminating respondents’ services. The court, however, did not agree.
Case Title: IDFC First Bank Limited v. Union of India and Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1080
The Delhi High Court recently held that DRT cannot entertain a claim for an amount less than Rs.10 lakhs under the SARFAESI Act.
A Division Bench comprising Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Amit Mahajan added that the SARFAESI Act's remedy under Section 13(10) cannot be availed by a bank independent of the provisions of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (RDB Act), and the pecuniary limit set out in the RDB Act also applies.
Case Title: ANR International Pvt Ltd v. Mahavir Singhal
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1081
The Delhi High Court has held that Section 8 of the A&C Act is mandatory in nature meaning thereby that the Court is bound to refer the dispute to arbitration when there exists a valid arbitration agreement between the parties and the respondent makes an application for reference to arbitration before submitting its written statement before the Court.
The bench of Justices V. Kameshwar Rao and Mr. Anoop Kumar Mendiratta held that the Court cannot refuse to refer the dispute to arbitration merely on the ground that the defendant had initially, in reply to Section 21 notice, denied the existence of the arbitration agreement.
Case Title: BT (India) Private Limited Versus UOI
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1082
The Delhi High Court has held that a CENVAT credit refund cannot be denied in the absence of the self-assessed return having been questioned, reviewed or re-assessed.
The bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Dharmesh Sharma has observed that a self-assessed return also amounts to an “assessment” and unless it is varied or modified in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the relevant statute, it cannot possibly be questioned in refund proceedings.
Case Title: National Projects Constructions Corporation Ltd v. AAC India Pvt Ltd
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1083
The Delhi High Court has reiterated that the Court exercising powers under Section 34 of the A&C Act cannot modify an arbitral award. It held that the Court can either uphold the award or set aside any finding, however, the Court is powerless to modify the award by allowing a relief that was disallowed by the arbitral tribunal.
The bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Dharmesh Sharma also held that where damage or loss is difficult or impossible to prove, the tribunal is empowered to award liquidated amount stipulated in the contract, if it is a genuine pre-estimate of damage or loss, or reasonable compensation for the said amount loss or damage. The claim for LD in such cases is well within the purview of Section 74 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.
Case Title: Ms. Sabiha Parveen v. Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1084
A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising the Chief Justice and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela recently dismissed the PIL filed by a party while suppressing relationship with the private respondent.
“…this Court is of the firm opinion that the Petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands… the Petitioner was certainly an interested person”, the court said.
Case Title: ANJANA GOSAIN v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT AND ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1085
The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi Government to immediate take steps for operationalizing the Online Single Window System (OSWS) portal for clearing fee memos of its lawyers and for inaugurating the same within the one month.
Justice Prathiba M Singh asked the Delhi Government to file a report regarding the functioning of the portal and listed the matter for hearing on March 07.
Title: MAX HEALTHCARE INSTITUTE LIMITED v. MAXI CURE HOSPITALS & ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1086
The Delhi High Court has restrained a Telangana based hospital chain from using the mark “Maxi Cure” for its healthcare services in a trademark infringement suit filed by Max Healthcare.
Keeping in view the fact that since Maxi Cure Hospital was using the impugned mark for a hospital, Justice Prathiba M Singh clarified that the injunction shall come into effect only from February 01, 2024.
Case Title: Aryan Kumar (Minor) through Father Ravinder Kumar v. Kendriya Vidyalaya & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1087
Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani of the Delhi High Court recently allowed a student of Class-XI to be promoted based on marks obtained by him in Physical Education, an additional subject, instead of Mathematics (which he had failed to qualify).
The petitioner’s grievance was that he had been denied promotion on the ground of Article 106 of the KVS Education Code (as amended in 2018), even though respondent No.1/school was bound by CBSE Examination Bye-Laws, 1995, which allow for marks in main subject to be substituted with marks of an additional subject, subject to conditions.
Case Title: S. v. State of GNCT Delhi & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1088
A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court recently disposed of a habeas corpus petition, where the missing girl, a minor, was recovered but her parents/petitioner refused to take custody in view of her pregnancy.
Notably, the petition was filed by the mother of the girl, seeking directions for her production before the court. It was alleged that a boy had lured the daughter away, established physical relations with her and made public certain illicit videos that he had made of her.
Title: NILKAMAL CRATES AND CONTANERS & ANR. v. MS. REENA RAJPAL & ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1089
The Delhi High Court has restrained two plastic chair manufacturers from using “Nilkranti” device mark or any other device mark which is confusingly or deceptively similar to the device marks of Nilkamal.
Justice C Hari Shankar however rejected Nilkamal’s prayer in its trademark infringement suit to restrain the manufacturers from using “Nilkranti” as a word mark, either for chairs or for any other item manufactured by them.
Case Title: Viridian Development Managers Pvt Ltd v. RPS Infrastructure Limited
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1090
The Delhi High Court has held that once the licence is revoked by the licensor, any use of the mark by the ex-licensee would amount to an infringement of the trademark and would deceive the public, inasmuch as the public would be led to believe that the ex-licensee is still connected with the licensor.
The bench of Justice Sachin Datta held that an ex-licensee cannot be allowed to use the mark after termination of license. Further, the licensor has a right and duty to ensure the consistency of the goods or services being sold and advertised under its mark and take action against any infringement of the mark.
Title: DR. AJAY PAL v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1091
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a PIL seeking judicial inquiry into the legitimacy of appointment of Dr. Ishwarappa Veerbhadrappa Basavaraddi as Director of the Morarji Desai National Institute of Yoga, an autonomous institution under the Union Ministry of AYUSH.
A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula rejected the plea moved by one Dr. Ajay Pal who claimed that during his tenure in the institute as an Assistant Professor, he witnessed numerous administrative discrepancies occurring under the directorship of Dr. Basavaraddi.
Title: VIJAY KUMAR AGARWAL v. PARVEEN SINGH AND ORS
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1092
The Delhi High Court has warned a litigant for misusing the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, as he sought contempt action against a district court judge on the ground that his grievances were not duly addressed.
Case Title: HDA Flavours Pvt Ltd v. Daddy’s Hospitality Pvt Ltd.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1093
Justice Sachin Datta of the Delhi High Court recently granted relief to “34 Chowringhee Lane” acquirer-HDA Flavours Pvt. Ltd., ruling that the Arbitrator, while dealing with a Section 17 application, should not have interdicted it from creating new franchisees.
“A blanket embargo on the appellant from creating any new franchisee or entering into such business agreements as may be appropriate for the advancement of business, may result in denuding the value of the business on account of stagnation/depletion in market share,” the court said.
Title: GOPI NISHA MALLAH v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1094
The Delhi High Court has ruled that conviction for committing sexual offences is no ground for denying the benefit of furlough to an otherwise eligible prisoner.
“In this Court’s opinion, merely because a person has been convicted for committing sexual offences, he cannot be denied benefit of furlough, which he is otherwise eligible for, on such erroneous grounds,” Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said.
Title: MS. KANIKA GUPTA MINOR THROUGH GUARDIAN AND FATHER SHRI AMIT GUPTA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1095
The Delhi High Court has directed the Centre and the Delhi Government to implement their policies on skill learning and vocational training to the children with special needs in letter and spirit with a timely reassessment to counter any challenges that may arise in future.
A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela disposed of a PIL moved by a class XII student seeking implementation of a nation-wide policy to impart skill learning and vocational training to children with special needs.
Delhi High Court Quashes Income Tax Demand Of Rs. 257 Crores Against Tata Steel Ltd.
Case Title: Tata Steel Limited Versus DCIT
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1096
The Delhi High Court has quashed the income tax demand of Rs. 257 crore against Tata Steel Ltd. (TSL).
The bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Girish Kathpalia has observed that a successful applicant is, in law, provided with a “clean slate”; therefore, dues for the period prior to the date when the RP was approved cannot be recovered. The courts have recognized this principle in more than one case.
Case Title: Indian Flexible Intermediate Bulk Container Association v. Director General of Foreign Trade
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1097
A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court recently ruled that DGFT’s decision to repeal the MEIS scheme with retrospective effect, combined with their refusal to honour claims for the valid period, was arbitrary and indefensible, both in principle and law.
Title: Chhath Pooja Sangharsh Samiti & Anr. v. Govt. of NCT Delhi & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1098
The Delhi High Court has refused to entertain a petition challenging the Delhi Government's decision of prohibiting devotees from performing Chhath Puja on the banks of Yamuna river.
Observing that the prohibition has been imposed in order to prevent pollution in the river, Justice Subramonium Prasad expressed his inclination to dismiss the plea which was moved by two societies namely Chath Pooja Sangharsh Samiti and Purwanchal Jagriti Manch.
Case Title: ATC Telecom Infrastructure Pvt Ltd v. BSNL
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1099
The Delhi High Court has held that the Court exercising powers under Section 29A of the A&C Act is empowered to extend the mandate of the arbitrator even in cases where the application seeking extension of time is not made within the time limit fixed for the making of the award.
The bench of Justice Sachin Datta held that the purport of Section 29A of the A&C Act is clearly not to tie the hands of the parties or the court, and prevent extension of time even where warranted, simply because the petition under Section 29A(4) of the A&C Act came to be filed a few days after expiration of the deadline contemplated under Section 29A(1) or Section 29A(3) of the A&C Act.
Case Title: BHAVREEN KANDHARI v. SHRI C. D. SINGH AND ORS. and other connected matters
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1100
The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi Government to issue within two weeks a notification declaring all un-encroached forest land in the national capital as reserved under Section 20 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927.
Justice Jasmeet Singh said that in case the notification is not issued within the stipulated period, the Chief Secretary of Delhi Government shall be liable for contempt action and a notice of contempt will be initiated against him.
Title: DARGHA NAJEEBUDDIN FIRDOUSI v. DELHI DEVLOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1101
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the ambit of a writ court does not extend to resolving intricate disputes over boundary delineations which require thorough examination of documents, surveys, maps, an assessment of their validity and ground study of areas.
A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula said that such tasks squarely fall within the expertise and jurisdiction of the statutory authorities which are constituted under relevant land statutes enacted by the State legislature.
Case Title: Shreyash Retail Private Ltd Versus Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax TDS Circle
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1102
The Delhi High Court has quashed the non-speaking order rejecting the grant of a lower deduction of tax certificate (LDC) permitting the deduction of 0.01% TDS.
The bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela has observed that the reasons furnished by the Respondent/department qua the Application i.e., as to why the Petitioners’ request that TDS should not be deducted at a rate of 0.01%, hinges on broad generalisations in relation to the propriety of projected estimations of revenue and tax liability and accordingly has been had been issued mechanically reflecting non-application of mind.
Chandni Chowk Re-Development Work Should Continue And Be Maintained: High Court To Delhi Govt
Title: COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. SHAHJAHANABAD REDEVLOPMENT CORPORATION (SRDC), GNCTD & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1103
The Delhi High Court has requested the Delhi Government to ensure that the re-development work of city’s Chandni Chowk is continued and maintained.
A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela disposed of a suo motu PIL registered last year on the basis of a newspaper report concerning various stages of Chandni Chowk’s development and the delay which occurred in its implementation.
Title: VIJAY KUMAR PANDEY AND ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1104
The Delhi High Court has asked Special Olympics Bharat to ensure strict compliance with National Sports Development Code, 2011, for all upcoming elections of office-bearers at national and state level.
A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula also asked the national sports federation to comply with the Code for the selection of sportspersons and national coaches for upcoming Special Olympic World Games, 2025.
Case Title: Rashmee Kansal v. The State and Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1105
"...under Section 326-B of the IPC, an offence is made out only if a person throws or attempts to throw ‘acid’ on another person, and not any other liquid or substance,” the Delhi High Court has held.
It thus quashed an FIR registered on allegations of a woman throwing acid on her sister-in-law, observing that the substance thrown was not found to be ‘acid’ and the allegation appeared to be motivated by an ongoing property dispute between the parties.
Title: COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1106
The Delhi High Court has issued a slew of directions to be followed by the court-appointed Child Safety Monitoring Committee during the course of its inspections of schools in the national capital, in respect of minimum standards of school safety.
A division bench of then Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma (now elevated to the Supreme Court) and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela ordered that no member will be allowed to inspect the schools independently and that the three member Committee as a whole headed by the Chairperson will inspect the schools.
Title: SAKH ALAM @ SHEKH ALAM v. THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT, DELHI) & ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1107
The Delhi High Court has said that merely because the complainant married the accused does not entail quashing of an FIR registered for the offence of rape and under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain refused to quash an FIR registered under the POCSO Act after the accused and complainant sought its quashing on the ground that they had settled their disputes, got married and were blessed with a son.
Can't Permit All Cases Against CBSE To Be Filed In Delhi When Most Vital Part Of Cause Of Action Arose Elsewhere: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Riddhima Singh through her father Shailendra Kumar Singh v. Central Board of Secondary Education through its Chairman & Ors
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1108
A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court recently dismissed an LPA seeking relief against CBSE, holding that though the Board has its HQs in Delhi, the appellant’s grievance was not directly attributable to it.
Speaking of forum conveniens, the Bench, comprising the Chief Justice and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, observed:
“…the doctrine of forum conveniens is invoked to determine the most appropriate forum for adjudication of a dispute and this exercise is undertaken not only for the convenience of the parties but also in the interest of justice”.
Case Title: COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. State and other connected matters
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1109
The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi Government to finalize within four weeks its proposal regarding the establishment of a specialised training academy for public prosecutors.
A division bench of then Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma (now elevated to the Supreme Court) and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela said that the public prosecutors shoulder weighty responsibilities in the discharge of their duties and directed the Delhi Government to file an affidavit outlining the steps taken by it.
Title: COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1110
The Delhi High Court has directed Delhi Police’s DCP (Legal) to convene a meeting to put in place the standard operating procedure (SOP) regarding the security measures to be followed during college fests that are organised by colleges or Universities in the national capital.
A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Mini Pushkarna said that the representatives of IIT Delhi, Delhi Universities and Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University shall also be called in the meeting.
Title: GOVIND SARAN SHARMA v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1111
The Delhi High Court has sought stand of the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) as to whether the matter of allotment of 128 properties, on prime locations in the national capital, based on “forged recommendation letters” by Land and Building Department be referred for further investigation to Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
Justice Prathiba M Singh said that the value of the properties, even at an average price, would be in thousands of crores, and that the total value even by conservative estimates could be over Rs. 2000 crores.
Conduct Security And Social Audit Of DUSIB Shelter Homes: High Court To Delhi Govt’s Chief Secretary
Title: COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. GNCTD AND ORS
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1112
The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi Government’s Chief Secretary to undertake a security and social audit of all the shelter homes under the supervision of Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board (DUSIB) to ensure that they are occupied by eligible persons.
A division bench comprising of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma (now elevated to the Supreme Court) and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela said that the exercise be done positively within six weeks.
Case Title: Bharti Airtel v. Jamshed Khan
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1113
The Delhi High Court has held that the Court exercising powers under Section 34 of the A&C Act cannot allow claims which were disallowed/rejected by the arbitral tribunal.
The bench of Justices Suresh Kumar Kait and Neena Bansal Krishna held that Section 34 of the A&C Act does not permit the Court to rewrite an arbitral award and the Court can either set aside or upheld the arbitral award.
Title: VINEET SURELIA v. THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1114
The Delhi High Court has said that an accused, once granted bail, is always expected to not only join the investigation but also participate in it, while underscoring that there is a palpable difference between “joining” and “participating” in probe.
“In any event, this Court wishes to take note of the fact that in numerous cases pending trial, unfortunately, there is a recent growing trend wherein an accused, despite either making a statement through counsel in the Court or despite conditions being imposed by the Court, merely chooses to ‘physically’ join investigation on paper, without any actual participation,” Justice Saurabh Banerjee said.