Citations 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 983 to 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1016NOMINAL INDEXThe Impresario Entertainment & Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. vs. Star Hospitality 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 983 Sameer Mahendru v. ED and other connected matter 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 984 Somnath Bharti v. Bansuri Swaraj and Others 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 985 Anand Gupta & Anr. Vs M/S. Almond Infrabuild Private Limited & Anr....
Citations 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 983 to 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1016
NOMINAL INDEX
The Impresario Entertainment & Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. vs. Star Hospitality 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 983
Sameer Mahendru v. ED and other connected matter 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 984
Somnath Bharti v. Bansuri Swaraj and Others 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 985
Anand Gupta & Anr. Vs M/S. Almond Infrabuild Private Limited & Anr. And Connected Matters 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 986
RAJATARANGINI INDIA MEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR. v. ROSHAN RAI & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 987
Emco Limited Vs Delhi Transco Limited 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 988
SABIB v. THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 989
MINOR N THR MOTHER P v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 990
DHEERAJ WADHAWAN vs. CBI 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 991
Shri Rashter Kumar vs. Delhi Development Authority & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 992
Celsius Healthcare Pvt Ltd Vs Deepti Gambhir Proprietor Of S P Distributors And Anr 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 993
Union Of India Vs Arsh Constructions 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 994
Thriving Farm Builders Pvt Ltd And Anr Vs Sushil Chaudhary And Air 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 995
Indraprastha Power Generation Company Ltd v. Hero Solar Energy Private Limited 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 996
Divine Infracon Private Limited Vs DCIT 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 997
Meenakshi Agrawal Vs M/S Rototech 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 998
Bcc Developers And Promoters Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union Of India 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 999
Morgan Ventures Limited Vs Nepc India Limited And Other & Ors. And Connected Matters 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1000
X and Ors. v The State and Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1001
Arun Pillai v Enforcement Directorate 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1002
Simplex Infrastructure Limited v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1003
Shakti Singh Thakur Vs Union Of India And Ors 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1004
Kabir Paharia Vs National Medical Commission And Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1005
LAMBODAR PRASAD PADHY Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1006
Jagatmitra Foundation v. UOI 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1007
BAREILLY HIGHWAYS PROJECT LIMITED. vs. RESERVE BANK OF INDIA & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1008
Parvinder Singh v CBI and other cases 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1009
SAHIL A. GARG NARWARNA vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1010
SPICEJET LIMITED Versus TEAM FRANCE 01 SAS (and connected matter) 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1011
COURTS ON ITS OWN MOTION IN RE: SUICIDE COMMITTED BY SUSHANT ROHILLA, LAW STUDENT OF I.P. UNIVERSITY 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1012
The General Manager Punjab National Bank And Ors & Ors. Vs. Rohit Malhotra & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1013
SONU RAJPUT v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1014
COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. STATE 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1015
Shutham Electric Ltd. Vs Vaibhav Raheja & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1016
Case Title: Impresario Entertainment & Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. vs. Star Hospitality
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 983
The Delhi High Court, in an interim order, temporarily restrained an entity operating a Vadodara based restaurant, from using the popular 'SOCIAL' trademark registered by Impresario Entertainment & Hospitality Pvt. Ltd, after noting that the entity's mark was similar and was likely to cause confusion to the general public.
Liquor Policy: Delhi High Court Grants Bail To Sameer Mahendru, Chanpreet Singh In ED Case
Title: Sameer Mahendru v. ED and other connected matter
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 984
The Delhi High Court has granted bail to businessman Sameer Mahendru and Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) volunteer Chanpreet Singh Rayat in the money laundering case connected to the alleged liquor policy scam.
Title: Somnath Bharti v. Bansuri Swaraj and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 985
The Delhi High Court has rejected the prayer of Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Somnath Bharti seeking a direction upon the Election Commission of India (ECI) to provide him with the burnt memory of all 1489 EVMs used in the Lok Sabha elections 2024 from New Delhi Parliamentary Constituency.
Case Title: Anand Gupta & Anr. Vs M/S. Almond Infrabuild Private Limited & Anr. And Connected Matters
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 986
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar has held that an order passed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, based on a settlement agreement, is enforceable as a decree in accordance with Section 36 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Title: RAJATARANGINI INDIA MEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR. v. ROSHAN RAI & ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 987
The Delhi High Court has vacated its interim order directing journalist Abhishek Baxi to delete his tweet against journalist Rohan Dua in relation the latter's interview of olympian Manu Bhaker.
Case Title: Emco Limited Vs Delhi Transco Limited
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 988
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar has held that Section 29A(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, when read with Section 29A(4), implies that the mandate of the arbitral tribunal terminates if the tribunal does not issue the award within twelve months of completing the pleadings under Section 23(4).
Title: SABIB v. THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 989
The Delhi High Court has denied bail to a man accused of raping his 6-year-old daughter in August last year, underscoring that the long-term effects of childhood sexual abuse are, at many times, insurmountable.
Title: MINOR N THR MOTHER P v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 990
The Delhi High Court has directed the Union Government to issue appropriate instructions to all hospitals to ensure that the identity of minor rape victims undergoing medical termination of pregnancy is not revealed and the record is kept confidential.
DHFL Bank Fraud Case: Delhi High Court Grants Bail To Ex-Promoter Dheeraj Wadhwan On Medical Grounds
Case title: DHEERAJ WADHAWAN vs. CBI
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 991
The Delhi High Court has granted bail on medical grounds to former promoter of Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Limited (DHFL) Dheeraj Wadhwan, who is an accused in the alleged multi crore bank loan misappropriation and cheating case.
Case title: Shri Rashter Kumar vs. Delhi Development Authority & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 992
The Delhi High Court has observed that an individual cannot claim a particular plot of land in a particular area of his choice as a matter of right, even if recommendations were made by a government authority or agency for allotment of alternate land to the individual.
Case Title: Celsius Healthcare Pvt Ltd Vs Deepti Gambhir Proprietor Of S P Distributors And Anr
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 993
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar has held that due to the broad interpretation of the term "dispute," the court cannot definitively conclude that no dispute exists between the parties, even in the absence of a monetary claim by the Petitioner against the Respondent in the notice issued under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Arbitrator Can't Assume Arbitral Seat Without Clear Agreement From Parties: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Union Of India Vs Arsh Constructions
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 994
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar has held that that parties in arbitration can agree to an arbitral seat at a neutral location, different from where the contract was executed, the work was carried out, or the arbitration proceedings were conducted. However, such a decision must first reflect mutual agreement and, secondly, must be documented, either explicitly in writing or recorded by the Arbitrator or the Court in an order.
Case Title: Thriving Farm Builders Pvt Ltd And Anr Vs Sushil Chaudhary And Air
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 995
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar has held that argument claiming the dispute is non-arbitrable due to non-compliance with the Share Purchase Agreement cannot be addressed by the court under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The bench held that such aspects need to be addressed by the arbitral tribunal.
The Arbitral Tribunal May Implead A Non-Signatory To The Arbitral Proceedings: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Indraprastha Power Generation Company Ltd v. Hero Solar Energy Private Limited
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 996
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C. Harishankar, while deciding an appeal under Section 37(2)(b) has held in the affirmative whether the arbitral tribunal may implead a non-signatory to the arbitration agreement in the proceedings. Following the ratio in Cox and Kings Ltd v. Sap India Pvt Ltd (Cox and Kings II), it observed that whether a non-signatory is bound by the arbitration agreement is for the Arbitral Tribunal to decide and not the Section 11 Court.
Estimation Report By DVO Alone Can't Form Basis For Reopening Completed Assessment: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Divine Infracon Private Limited Vs DCIT
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 997
The Delhi High Court held that the sole ground for re-opening of assessment u/s 148 by AO being the report/estimate of the Valuation Officer is unsustainable.
Case Title: Meenakshi Agrawal Vs M/S Rototech
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 998
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar has held that if a party seeking arbitration faces a situation where the opposing party does not respond to a Section 21 notice or refuses to agree to arbitration, the only recourse is to approach the Court under Section 11(5) or Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, depending on the circumstances.
The bench held that party cannot unilaterally grant jurisdiction to the arbitrator, even if the arbitrator is already named. Similarly, it held that the arbitrator cannot independently summon the opposing party to attend the arbitration proceedings.
Case Title: Bcc Developers And Promoters Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union Of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 999
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar has held that once the arbitral seat is established, all proceedings, including the initial ones, must be filed only in the court that has jurisdiction over the arbitral seat. The bench held that no other Court is authorized to handle any matters related to the arbitration.
Contempt Proceedings Inappropriate For Resolving Complex Disputed Factual Issues: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Morgan Ventures Limited Vs Nepc India Limited And Other & Ors. And Connected Matters
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1000
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Dharmesh Sharma has held that the contempt proceedings are not the appropriate forum to resolve disputed factual issues such as conducting a detailed accounting analysis to determine the fairness or justification of accounting practices.
Case title: X and Ors. v The State and Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1001
Dismissing a plea moved by a husband and his kin against an order directing him to pay maintenance to his wife under the Domestic Violence Act, the Delhi High Court agreed with the trial court's observation that unlike Section 125 CrPC, maintenance under the DV Act is not linked to the inability of the wife to maintain herself.
The observation came in a plea moved by a man and his family against an order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Saket Courts which had dismissed their appeal under Section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence (DV) Act against the trial court's order.
Case title: Arun Pillai v Enforcement Directorate
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1002
The Delhi High Court has granted bail to Hyderabad-based business Arun Ramchandran Pillai in a money laundering case linked to the now scrapped excise policy.
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna in its judgment, referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Manish Sisodia v. Enforcement Directorate and observed that the "triple test" for grant of bail was satisfied by Pillai.
Case Title: Simplex Infrastructure Limited v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1003
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C. Harishankar, while deciding a Section 11 application, has held that a referral court under Section 11 cannot examine the arbitrability of non-notified claims. After the SBI General Insurance Co Ltd v. Krish Spinning judgment, the arbitral tribunal will decide on the arbitrability of disputes.
Case Title: Shakti Singh Thakur Vs Union Of India And Ors
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1004
The Delhi High Court has observed that the assessment of an employee for a particular year must be based solely on their performance during that year, and incidents beyond the period covered by the Annual Performance Appraisal Report (APAR) cannot be used to either downgrade or upgrade an employee's rating.
Case Title: Kabir Paharia Vs National Medical Commission And Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1005
The Delhi High Court has declined the plea of a medical aspirant with "missing multiple fingers", seeking admission into MBBS course.
The bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma made it clear that it cannot delve into expert domains like assessing the "functional disability" of a medical aspirant and "the evaluation of the petitioner‟s ability to pursue the course, and later practice as a doctor, had to be entrusted to the experts in the medical field."
S. 17A PC Act | Preliminary Enquiry Against Unknown Offenders Not Strictly Barred: Delhi High Court
Case Title: LAMBODAR PRASAD PADHY Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1006
In a significant development, the Delhi High Court observed that although there's no bar to initiating preliminary enquiry against unknown public officials under the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 no case could be registered against such unknown officials unless previous sanction is obtained from the competent authority.
Case Title: Jagatmitra Foundation v. UOI
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1007
The Delhi High Court has refused to entertain a writ petition seeking initiation of criminal proceedings under FSSAI Act against packaged food manufacturers, for using excessive added sugar in their products.
Section 41 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 empowers the Food Safety Officer and Designated Officer to initiate prosecution against violators of the Act and the Rules and Regulations framed thereunder.
Case title: BAREILLY HIGHWAYS PROJECT LIMITED. vs. RESERVE BANK OF INDIA & ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1008
The Delhi High Court has observed that the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) is an appropriate authority to consider issues relating to 'unsavoury' practices of banks, calculating compound or penalty interest in a manner which leads to a situation where it becomes difficult to seek a resolution under Section 12A of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code (for withdrawal of corporate insolvency resolution).
Case title: Parvinder Singh v CBI and other cases
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1009
The Delhi High Court has questioned the Central Bureau of Investigation about the reason for heavy water logging and the amount of rainfall on July 27 when three civil services aspirants died after drowning in the flooded basement of a coaching centre in Old Rajendra Nagar.
Case title: SAHIL A. GARG NARWARNA vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1010
The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) to consider an application for holding Ramleela at a plot in Shahdara, Delhi, which has been acquired by the Delhi Government for the purposes of constructing judicial staff quarters.
Case Title: SPICEJET LIMITED Versus TEAM FRANCE 01 SAS (and connected matter)
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1011
In a setback to debt-ridden low-cost airline company SpiceJet, the Delhi High Court refused to interfere with the Single Judge order directing SpiceJet to ground three aircraft engines for defaulting on payments to engine lessors.
Title: COURTS ON ITS OWN MOTION IN RE: SUICIDE COMMITTED BY SUSHANT ROHILLA, LAW STUDENT OF I.P. UNIVERSITY
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1012
The Delhi High Court in a slew of directions has asked the Secretary, Union Ministry of Education (dealing with Higher Education) to commence within two weeks stakeholder consultations to discuss whether attendance norms should be made mandatory in undergraduate and postgraduate courses.
Appeal/Revision Against NCDRC Order Lies With Jurisdictional High Court: Delhi High Court Reiterates
Case title: The General Manager Punjab National Bank And Ors & Ors. Vs. Rohit Malhotra & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1013
The Delhi High Court has observed that the order passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), while considering an appeal or revision against the order of a State Commission other than the State Commission of Delhi, cannot be challenged before it as it lacks jurisdiction over such cases.
Title: SONU RAJPUT v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1014
The Delhi High Court has called for amendment of the nomenclature of Seema Sashastra Bal (SSB) posts which were earlier earmarked only for male candidates but are now open to women as well.
A division bench comprising Justice Rekha Palli and Justice Shalinder Kaur was dealing with a young mother's plea who applied for the post of Constable (Washer Man)-Female under OBC quota in SSB.
Title: COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. STATE
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1015
The Delhi High Court has observed that the judicial data related to criminal cases available on the Inter-operable Criminal Justice System (ICJS) portal needs to be synced with the Crime Record Bureau to ensure “accurate availability of data” relating to the accused.
Case Title: Shutham Electric Ltd. Vs Vaibhav Raheja & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1016
The Delhi High Court bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela has held that when a party makes a clear admission of owing a loan in its contemporaneous correspondence, the arbitrator is justified in treating it as an admitted claim under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC.
The bench noted that the purpose of this rule is to allow a party to secure a speedy judgment, at least to the extent of the relief that the plaintiff is entitled to based on the defendant's admission.