Citations 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1105 to 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1129NOMINAL INDEXKALAWATI v. THE STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1105 RAM PREET v. STATE 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1106 MANCHU VISHNU VARDHAN BABU ALIAS VISHNU MANCHU v. AREBUMDUM & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1107 RANJEET KUMAR THAKUR v. UOI & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1108 Master Capital Services Limited & Anr. vs....
Citations 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1105 to 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1129
NOMINAL INDEX
KALAWATI v. THE STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1105
RAM PREET v. STATE 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1106
MANCHU VISHNU VARDHAN BABU ALIAS VISHNU MANCHU v. AREBUMDUM & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1107
RANJEET KUMAR THAKUR v. UOI & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1108
Master Capital Services Limited & Anr. vs. John Doe & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1109
Parikshit Grewal & Ors versus Union of India & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1110
AIR FORCE SPORTS COMPLEX (AFSC) v. LT. GEN S S DAHIYA 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1111
AMIT KUMAR DIWAKAR v. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1112
PayU Payments Private Limited v. The New India Assurance Co Ltd 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1113
LAVA INTERNATIONAL LIMITED Vs MINTELLECTUALS LLP 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1114
Avinesh Kumar vs. Delhi Development Authority And Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1115
FLFL TRAVEL RETAIL LUCKNOW PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1116
St. Stephan College vs. Vikash Gupta And Ors 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1117
UJWAL GHAI v. DELHI HIGH COURT LEGAL SERVICES COMMITTEE (DHCLSC) 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1118
YUDHVEER SINGH YADAV v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INESTIGATION THROUGH SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF INDIA 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1119
STATE v. MANPAL & ORS 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1120
MICHAEL BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. v. NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION AND ORS 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1121
Mriksha Corporation Pvt Ltd v. Absolute Legends Sports Pvt Ltd & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1122
M/s Agarwal Associates (Promoters) Limited v. M/s Sharda Developers 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1123
AMIT KUMAR GUPTA v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1124
Satish Kumar vs. Union of India & Others 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1125
DSSSB and Anr. v. Dinesh Mahawar & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1126
Sunil Kumar Tewatia v Jain Cooperative Bank 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1127
Rajesh Kumar Gupta v. Rajender and Others 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1128
Corrtech International Pvt Ltd v. Delhi International Arbitration Center and Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1129
Title: KALAWATI v. THE STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1105
The Delhi High Court has recently rejected a petition filed by a mother seeking registration of FIR into her daughter's death in 2013 pursuant to an alleged political conspiracy involving former Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, Kumar Vishvas and other Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) workers.
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna dismissed the plea filed by Kalawati who challenged the trial court order passed last year rejecting her application seeking registration of FIR under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
Delhi High Court Issues Directions To Prevent Delay In Releasing Compensation To POCSO Survivors
Title: RAM PREET v. STATE
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1106
The Delhi High Court has issued directions to prevent delay in releasing compensation by the Delhi State Legal Services Authority (DSLSA) to the survivors in POCSO cases.
A division bench comprising of Justice Prathiba M Singh and Justice Amit Sharma that there is clearly a disconnect between the POCSO Courts and the concerned Delhi State Legal Service Authorities on the issue.
Title: MANCHU VISHNU VARDHAN BABU ALIAS VISHNU MANCHU v. AREBUMDUM & ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1107
The Delhi High Court has recently passed a john doe order to protect the personality rights of Indian actor and film producer Vishnu Manchu who is known for his work primarily in Telugu cinema.
Justice Mini Pushkarna was dealing with Vishnu's suit seeking protection of his name, voice, image, likeness and all other elements of his personality. The suit was filed against the unauthorized use of his personality elements, alleging that the same were used by third parties which was likely to create confusion and deception amongst the public.
Title: RANJEET KUMAR THAKUR v. UOI & ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1108
The Delhi High Court has recently directed all the district courts in the national capital to ensure that the appearances of advocates are properly recorded in the order sheets.
Justice Sanjeev Narula directed the Principal District and Sessions Judge (Headquarters) to issue necessary instructions to all District Courts on the issue.
Case title: Master Capital Services Limited & Anr. vs. John Doe & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1109
The Delhi High Court has issued an ex-parte temporary injunction against unidentified individuals, restraining them from using the trademark 'Master Trust', owned by Master Capital Services Limited.
The Court also directed Meta, Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology and Department of Telecommunications to block WhatsApp accounts of groups, which are claiming association with Master Capital and asking public to invest funds.
Case Tittle: Parikshit Grewal & Ors versus Union of India & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1110
A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising of Justices C. Hari Shankar and Sudhir Kumar Jain held that the Administrative Tribunal has the jurisdiction, powers and authority exercised by all the courts in relation to recruitment and matters in relation to recruitment to a civil post under section 14(1) of the Administrative Tribunals Act
Air Force Sports Complex Not A 'Public Authority' Under RTI Act: Delhi High Court
Title: AIR FORCE SPORTS COMPLEX (AFSC) v. LT. GEN S S DAHIYA
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1111
The Delhi High Court has observed that the Air Force Sports Complex (AFSC) is not a 'public authority' under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) on the ground that the government does not exercise significant control over AFSC and its operations are not dependant on funding from the government.
Title: AMIT KUMAR DIWAKAR v. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY & ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1112
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition seeking to disqualify Bar Council of India (BCI) Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra from the Rajya Sabha, with costs of Rs. 25,000.
Justice Sanjeev Narula rejected the plea moved by Advocate Amit Kumar Diwakar, who alleged that Mishra, while holding the office of Chairman of BCI, which is a statutory body, cannot simultaneously serve as a sitting member of the Rajya Sabha.
Case Title: PayU Payments Private Limited v. The New India Assurance Co Ltd
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1113
The Delhi High Court, following the law laid down in SBI General Insurance Co Ltd v. Krish Spinning, has held that the aspects of non-arbitrability of a claim are for the arbitral tribunal to adjudicate, and courts at Section 11 stage cannot examine the same.
Case Title: LAVA INTERNATIONAL LIMITED Vs MINTELLECTUALS LLP
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1114
The Delhi High Court bench comprising Justice Prateek Jalan has held that in orders passed by the arbitral tribunal under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the court is not bound by the principles underlying Order XXXVIII and XXXIX of the Civil Procedure Code.
Case title: Avinesh Kumar vs. Delhi Development Authority And Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1115
The Delhi High Court has observed that a 'worshipper of a temple', who has no personal interest over the temple property, cannot be granted a relief to stop the demolition of the temple built illegally on a land owned by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA).
Case Title: FLFL TRAVEL RETAIL LUCKNOW PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA & ANR.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1116
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Prateek Jalan has held that the duty of arbitrators of disclosure of any conflicts under Section 12 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is mandatory and continuous throughout the proceedings. The court noted that disclosure must be in writing and a verbal disclosure does not suffice. The court also held that there was a violation of section 18 of the Act as the party has not had an opportunity to consider and respond to submissions on evidence furnished by the opposing party.
Case title: St. Stephan College vs. Vikash Gupta And Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1117
The Delhi High Court has found Delhi University (DU) officials to be in "wilful disobedience" of its order, where the DU was directed to allocate proportionate number of PG seats to St. Stephan College.
Legal Internships Do Not Amount To Active Legal Practice: Delhi High Court
Title: UJWAL GHAI v. DELHI HIGH COURT LEGAL SERVICES COMMITTEE (DHCLSC)
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1118
The Delhi High Court has recently observed that legal internships undertaken as law students do not amount to “active legal practice” after being enrolled as an advocate.
“Internships undertaken as part of legal education, though valuable in providing practical exposure, do not satisfy the professional experience requirement for practicing law,” Justice Sanjeev Narula observed.
Withholding Bail When Court Deemed It Fit To Release Accused Amounts To Punishment: Delhi High Court
Title: YUDHVEER SINGH YADAV v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INESTIGATION THROUGH SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1119
The Delhi High Court has held that where a Court deems it fit to release an accused on merits, withholding bail amounts to a punishment.
“Therefore, if a Court on merits deems it fit to release an accused on bail, withholding the aforesaid relief will amount to be considered as a punishment,” Justice Chandra Dhari Singh said.
Title: STATE v. MANPAL & ORS
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1120
The Delhi High Court has observed that the prosecution and Delhi Government's Department of Law & Legislative Affairs must exercise due diligence before initiating cases and that legal process must not be misused through frivolous litigation.
Forum Shopping Is Abuse Of Legal Process And Cannot Be Condoned: Delhi High Court
Case title: MICHAEL BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. v. NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION AND ORS
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1121
The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma has held that forum shopping, i.e., such conduct, where the petitioner attempts to choose a forum favourable to them after having already approached the appropriate forum, is an abuse of legal process and cannot be condoned.
Case Title: Mriksha Corporation Pvt Ltd v. Absolute Legends Sports Pvt Ltd & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1122
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Sachin Datta, while hearing a Section 9 petition under the A&C Act, has granted interim relief to the petitioner by staying the communication of Event Technical Committee (ETC) and the Apex Council which allowed the result of a cricket match to be altered after the result has been announced.
Case Title: M/s Agarwal Associates (Promoters) Limited v. M/s Sharda Developers
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1123
The Delhi High Court has held that the scope of review under Article 227 is extremely narrow; the same cannot be invoked when the interrogatories and discoveries allowed by the tribunal have a co-relation and nexus with the subject matter of the dispute.
Title: AMIT KUMAR GUPTA v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1124
A division bench of the Delhi High Court comprising of Justice Navin Chawla & Justice Shalinder Kaur, held that annual performance appraisal report determining career progression and promotions must be written by superior officers with objectivity, impartiality, fairness and free from any prejudice.
Case Name: Satish Kumar vs. Union of India & Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1125
A division bench of Delhi High Court comprising Justice Rekha Palli and Justice Shalinder Kaur ordered the reinstatement of Satish Kumar, a Sub-Inspector (SI) with the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), after finding that his dismissal following accusations of conspiring with a female constable in a sexual harassment case was unjustified. The court re-evaluated the evidence presented in the departmental inquiry due to the unique facts of the case, where the main charge against Kumar was tied to a superior officer who had himself been punished for sexual misconduct.
Case Title: DSSSB and Anr. v. Dinesh Mahawar & Others.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1126
Recently, a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising of Justice C Hari Shankar and Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain heard a petition impugning the Judgment by Central Administrative Tribunal (“CAT”) which allowed the respondents' Original Applications (“OAs”) and held that the respondents were entitled to be treated as Scheduled Caste candidates based on the certificates held by them, though the certificate was issued outside Delhi.
Case Title: Sunil Kumar Tewatia v Jain Cooperative Bank
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1127
Recently, a Single Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising of Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju heard a petition impugning the award passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge. By the Impugned Award, the complaint filed by the Petitioner on the applicability of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, was dismissed by the Labour Court, in view of the specific bar as placed by the provisions of Section 70(1)(b) of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 2003 [“DCS Act”].
Case Title: Rajesh Kumar Gupta v. Rajender and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1128
The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad observed that it is well settled that the principle of judicial non-interference in arbitral proceedings is fundamental to both domestic as well as international commercial arbitration and that the Arbitration Act is self contained code. In this case, a petition under section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act (Act) was filed seeking appointment of a sole arbitrator.
Case Title: Corrtech International Pvt Ltd v. Delhi International Arbitration Center and Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1129
The Delhi High Court division bench of Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Tushar Rao Gadela, while hearing an appeal, has upheld the order passed by a single-judge bench wherein it was held that the question of whether an entity was an MSME at the relevant time was to determined by the tribunal under section 16 of A&C Act and not the writ court.