Citations 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1017 to 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1032NOMINAL INDEXDr. Neena Raizada v. Medical Council of India through its Secretary & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1017Wills John v. Delhi Development Authority 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1018The Commissioner Of Income Tax (International Taxation)-1, Delhi Versus M/S Bio-Rad Laboratories (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1019KAVI...
Citations 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1017 to 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1032
NOMINAL INDEX
Dr. Neena Raizada v. Medical Council of India through its Secretary & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1017
Wills John v. Delhi Development Authority 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1018
The Commissioner Of Income Tax (International Taxation)-1, Delhi Versus M/S Bio-Rad Laboratories (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1019
KAVI VAIDWAN & ORS. v. DELHI SKILL AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP UNIVERSITY & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1020
PHONOGRAPHIC PERFORMANCE LIMITED v. GOLA SIZZLERS PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS. and other connected matters 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1021
X v. Y 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1022
Vodafone Idea Limited Versus Union Of India & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1023
MISSION SAVE CONSTITUTION v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1024
SMT. DEEPALI & ANR. v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1025
SUNSHINE TEAHOUSE PVT LTD v. GREY MANTRA SOLUTIONS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1026
INDEPENDENT SCHOOL FEDERATION OF INDIA & ANR. v. THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1027
Sakshi Rathore and Ors v. Union of India and Ors 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1028
Syngenta Limited v. Controller of Patents and Designs 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1029
WONDER BRICKS Versus PCIT 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1030
Mehra Jewel Palace Pvt Ltd Vs Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1031
TTK PRESTIGE LTD v. ARJUN RAM & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1032
Case Title: Dr. Neena Raizada v. Medical Council of India through its Secretary & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1017
In a challenge brought against improper issuance of medical certificate by 2 doctors, the Delhi High Court recently held that removing their names from the rolls of Medical Council of India’s register (MCI rolls) was not the only punishment that could be given.
Interpreting Regulations 7.7 and 8.2 of the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002, Justice Subramonium Prasad said that removal of a doctor’s name from MCI rolls for issuing improper certificate was only one of the possible punishments, but not the only.
Case Title: Wills John v. Delhi Development Authority
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1018
The Delhi High Court recently quashed DDA’s cancellation order w.r.t. a flat allotted in 1996 and directed that the same be handed over to the allottee’s son (petitioner).
While deciding in favour of the petitioner, Justice Jasmeet Singh held that the Authority’s cancellation of the allotment was in violation of principles of natural justice, as no show-cause/termination notice in advance had been served.
IT And Admin Services By Singapore Entity To Its Affiliate In India Can’t Be FTS: Delhi High Court
Case Title: The Commissioner Of Income Tax (International Taxation)-1, Delhi Versus M/S Bio-Rad Laboratories (Singapore) Pte. Ltd.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1019
The Delhi High Court has held that information technology and other administrative services provided by the respondent or assessee to its affiliate in India could be construed as fees for technical services (FTS).
The bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Girish Kathpalia has observed that services offered by the respondent or assessee to its Indian affiliates did not come within the purview of FTS, as reflected in Article 12(4)(b) of the Indo-Singapore DTAA, and concluded that they did not fulfil the criteria of the “make available” principle.
Title: KAVI VAIDWAN & ORS. v. DELHI SKILL AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP UNIVERSITY & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1020
The Delhi High Court has observed that it is regrettable that the candidates appearing for competitive examinations have to resort to malpractices and tampering in order to succeed, as a result of which innocent and sincere students become victims of their colleagues’ disorderly conduct.
Justice Chandra Dhari Singh said that such situations do not leave the State or its agencies with any other option but to cancel the examination altogether.
Title: PHONOGRAPHIC PERFORMANCE LIMITED v. GOLA SIZZLERS PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS. and other connected matters
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1021
The Delhi High Court has temporarily restrained Sandoz and Gola Sizzlers from playing the sound recordings of Phonographic Performance Limited in the latter’s suit alleging copyright infringement by the two food outlets.
Justice C Hari Shankar observed that a case for grant of ex-parte ad-interim injunction is made out against the two food outlets.
The court also bound another food outlet Tim Hortons by the statement made by its counsel that it is not playing, nor would play, any of the sound recordings forming part of Phonographic Performance Limited’s repertoire, without a license.
Title: X v. Y
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1022
The Delhi High Court has said that merely because the wife is holding a graduation degree, it cannot be presumed that she is intentionally not working solely with an intent to claim interim maintenance from the husband, particularly when she was never employed in the past.
While refusing to reduce interim maintenance granted to a wife, a division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna said:
“ There is no denial that the wife is a graduate having a degree, but she has never been gainfully employed. No inference can be drawn that merely because the wife is holding a degree of graduation, she must be compelled to work. It can also not be presumed that she is intentionally not working solely with an intent to claim interim maintenance from the husband.”
Case Title: Vodafone Idea Limited Versus Union Of India & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1023
The Delhi High Court has directed the department to refund IGST on telecommunication services rendered by Vodafone Idea to foreign telecom operators (FTO).
The Bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan has observed that the predecessor of the petitioner (Vodafone India Ltd.) had prevailed before the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal on the question of whether the services qualified for export services.
Title: MISSION SAVE CONSTITUTION v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1024
The Delhi High Court has refused to grant permission to an organization to hold a public meeting (All India Muslim Mahapanchayat) at the Ramlila Ground on October 29.
Justice Subramonium Prasad upheld the Delhi Police’s decision which revoked the permission granted to the organization for holding the meeting, observing that it cannot be held to be arbitrary. It was the police’s stand that the proposed event was "communal".
The petition was moved by Mission Save Constitution, an organization which is found by Advocate Mehmood Pracha. It claims to work for creating awareness among the masses, especially the depressed classes, about their constitutional rights.
Title: SMT. DEEPALI & ANR. v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1025
While granting police protection to a couple who got married against the wishes of their parents, the Delhi High Court has said that where the parties are major, their right to marry a person of choice is protected under the Constitution of India and even their family members cannot object to such relationship.
Justice Tushar Rao Gedela observed that the couple’s right to marry cannot be diluted in any manner and that the State is under a constitutional obligation to provide protection to its citizens.
Title: SUNSHINE TEAHOUSE PVT LTD v. GREY MANTRA SOLUTIONS
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1026
The Delhi High Court has restrained a flavoured tea brand, selling its products under the brand name “Teacurry” and “Just Vedic”, from making any fresh manufacture under the trade dress and packaging of the tea café “Chaayos.”
Regarding the products that have already been manufactured under Chaayos’ packaging, Justice Prathiba M Singh directed the flavoured tea manufacturer to place on record the details of the inventory along with the monetary value.
Title: INDEPENDENT SCHOOL FEDERATION OF INDIA & ANR. v. THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1027
The Delhi High Court has recently dismissed a petition challenging the appointment of Senior IAS officer Nidhi Chibber as the chairman of Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) by way of a “bureaucratic reshuffle.”
Justice Chandra Dhari Singh rejected the plea moved by Independent School Federation of India alleging that Chibber did not fulfil the requisite terms and conditions for appointment to the position of CBSE Chairman.
Case Title: Sakshi Rathore and Ors v. Union of India and Ors
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1028
The Delhi High Court recently refused to entertain an appeal challenging “last minute” notification of the Director General, Armed Forces Medical Services (AFMS) preventing candidates from participating in subsequent rounds of counselling, should they commence attendance at an institution or be allotted seats by the Medical Counselling Committee in the third round of counselling.
Case Title: Syngenta Limited v. Controller of Patents and Designs
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1029
While answering a reference, a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justices Yashwant Varma and Dharmesh Sharma recently overruled the judgment passed by a Single Bench in Boehringer Ingelheim International GMBH v. The Controller of Patents.
The decision came to be rendered in the context of Section 16 of the Patents Act, 1970. This provision allows filing of a further (divisional) application w.r.t. an invention disclosed in the specifications of a preceding patent application, suo motu or consequent to an objection raised by the Controller.
Case Title: WONDER BRICKS Versus PCIT
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1030
The Delhi High Court has quashed the assessment order passed before the time to file a reply to the show cause notice expired.
The bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Girish Kathpalia has observed that the show cause notice was issued on March 31, 2023, giving time to the petitioner or assessee to file its reply by May 5, 2023 (15:49 hours). The impugned order was passed on April 13, 2023.
Case Title: Mehra Jewel Palace Pvt Ltd Vs Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1031
The Delhi High Court has granted the assessee an opportunity to adduce appropriate evidence—documentary or otherwise—before the Assessing Officer in order to establish its claim regarding educational qualification, experience, work profile, and in particular the duties discharged by the concerned persons to justify the claim of the appellant or assessee qua payment of salary to the persons concerned.
The bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Girish Kathpalia has observed that as per the provision under Section 40A(2)(a) of the Income Tax Act, before recording disallowance, the Assessing Officer has to form an opinion. The opinion has to have regard to, inter alia, the legitimate needs of the business, the benefit derived, or even the fair payment outgoing for services rendered.
Title: TTK PRESTIGE LTD v. ARJUN RAM & ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1032
The Delhi High Court has temporarily restrained two manufacturers from selling or advertising “Paristone” pressure cookers bearing a design which is prima facie identical and infringes that of “Prestige” Svachh range of pressure cookers.
Justice C Hari Shankar also restrained the manufacturers from using the trade dress “Paristone” for its mark which is almost identical to the trade dress used by Prestige.