Citations 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 813 to 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 840NOMINAL INDEX Aphv India Investco. Private Limited Versus ACIT 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 813 M/s BCC-MONALISHA (JV) v. Container Corporation of India, ARB.P. 933/2022 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 814 DR. REDDY’S LABORATORIES LIMITED vs FAST CURE PHARMA AND ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 815 M/s BCC-MONALISHA (JV) v. Container Corporation of India,...
Citations 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 813 to 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 840
NOMINAL INDEX
Aphv India Investco. Private Limited Versus ACIT 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 813
M/s BCC-MONALISHA (JV) v. Container Corporation of India, ARB.P. 933/2022 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 814
DR. REDDY’S LABORATORIES LIMITED vs FAST CURE PHARMA AND ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 815
M/s BCC-MONALISHA (JV) v. Container Corporation of India, ARB.P. 933/2022 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 816
SANGHI BROS (INDORE) PVT. LTD. vs KAMLENDRA SINGH 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 817
TEK CHAND v. STATE OF U P & ORS. and other connected matters 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 818
Amazon Web Services India Pvt Ltd & Anr. Versus ITO 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 819
X v. Y 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 820
FIROZ AND ANR. v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 821
Himanshu Kumar v. UPSC & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 822
ANITA SANTIAGO v. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 823
Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax -1, Chandigarh Versus M/S Kuantum Papers Ltd. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 824
PALLAVIMOHANALIASPALLAVIMENON v. RAGHU MENON 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 825
SILICA UDYOG INDIA PVT LTD v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. and other connected matters 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 826
MALINI CHAUDHRI v. RANJIT CHAUDHRI & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 827
Rajat Kapoor v. Union of India & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 828
BHAVREEN KANDHARI v. SHRI C. D. SINGH AND ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 829
LIVING MEDIA INDIA LIMITED & ANR. v. AABTAK CHANNEL.COM (JOHN DOES) & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 830
X v. Y 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 831
SANTOSH BHUTANI & ANR v. SAVITRI DEVI THROUGH LRs 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 832
Sarika Patel v. State 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 833
GOPAL RAI v. UNION OF INDIA 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 834
SIDHARTHA EXTENSION POCKET C RESIDENTS WELFARE ASSOCIATION & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 835
Ashok Kumar Rajdev & Ors. v. Government of NCT of Delhi Through Directorate of Vigilance & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 836
MAJOR GENERAL M.S. AHLUWALIA v. M/S TEHELKA.COM & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 837
Sanjay Kumar Pundeer v. State 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 838
Sandhya Gupta & Anr v. State 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 839
RAJASTHAN EQUESTRIAN ASSOCIATION v. EQUESTRIAN FEDERATION OF INDIA AND ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 840
Overlooking Assesssee’s Reply Demonstrates Non-Application Of Mind By The AO: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Aphv India Investco. Private Limited Versus ACIT
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 813
The Delhi High Court has quashed the draft assessment orders, final assessment orders, and consequential demand on the grounds that the assessing officer inadvertently overlooked the email reply of the assessee, in which the assessee disclosed vital facts pertaining to its case.
The bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Girish Kathpalia has observed that the denial of sufficient time to respond was not just an abrogation of jus naturale but also infringed clause B(1) of the Standard Operating Procedure dated November 19, 2020, of the CBDT, according to which normally a response time of 15 days has to be given to the assessee in order to respond to the notice under Section 142 of the Income Tax Act.
Case Title: M/s BCC-MONALISHA (JV) v. Container Corporation of India, ARB.P. 933/2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 814
The Delhi High Court has held that claims of a party cannot be referred to arbitration when the requirement to mandatorily notify such claims with the General Manger (GM) was not followed.
Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri held that the Court can conduct a preliminary enquiry to find out if the dispute is arbitrable in terms of the agreement and refuse arbitration when the claims are ex facie non-arbitrable.
Case Title: DR. REDDY’S LABORATORIES LIMITED vs FAST CURE PHARMA AND ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 815
The Delhi High Court has ruled that High Courts have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the rectification petition seeking removal of trademark from the Register of Trademarks under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, if the ‘dynamic effect’ of the impugned registration is felt within the High Court’s jurisdiction by the person who has challenged the validity of the trade mark registration or has sought its removal.
Accordingly, the court said, the High Court dealing with a suit for infringement of Trademark would have the jurisdiction to entertain the rectification petition after the court comes to the conclusion that the plea of invalidity raised by the party under Section 124(1)(ii) of the Act, is tenable.
Case Title: M/s BCC-MONALISHA (JV) v. Container Corporation of India, ARB.P. 933/2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 816
The Delhi High Court has held that in cases where the contract stipulates arbitration solely in instances where the cumulative value of claims is below 20% of the contract value, the court would abstain from directing the parties towards arbitration if the claims surpass this specified cumulative value threshold.
Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri held that the Court can conduct a preliminary enquiry to find out if the dispute is arbitrable in terms of the agreement and refuse arbitration when the claims are ex facie non-arbitrable.
Case Title: SANGHI BROS (INDORE) PVT. LTD. vs KAMLENDRA SINGH
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 817
The Delhi High Court has refused to grant decree of specific performance against a suit property after noting that the property had been sold to a third party during the pendency of the suit. The court said the said circumstance made it inequitable to grant and enforce the specific performance decree.
Justice Chandra Dhari Singh reiterated that it is a settled law that specific performance is not granted by the Courts due to the various hardships which may be caused to the third party in case the specific performance is granted. The bench said that while exercising the discretion of granting specific performance, the court has to balance the interests of justice and equity for the parties involved and has to look into the probable consequences of granting such specific performance.
Case Title: TEK CHAND v. STATE OF U P & ORS. and other connected matters
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 818
While upholding the acquittal of five accused persons in 2015 in a murder case registered way back in 1998, the Delhi High Court has cautioned the Delhi Police and Uttar Pradesh Police for conducting “terrible investigation.”
A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna said that both the investigating agencies “mechanically investigated” the FIR which was registered in 1998 wherein the accused persons were acquitted in 2015 and thus, faced “ordeal of long trial and suffered loss of time, energy and reputation” which cannot be compensated in terms of money or otherwise.
Case Title: Amazon Web Services India Pvt Ltd & Anr. Versus ITO
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 819
The Delhi High Court has directed that AWS India withhold 8% of payments payable or paid to AWS USA and deposit the same with the income tax department.
The division bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan has observed that the nature of the proceedings is confined to the withholding of tax and that the financial year 2022–23 is already over.
Title: X v. Y
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 820
The Delhi High Court has said that a wife cannot be entitled to maintenance by the husband when she is highly qualified and has been earning even after her marriage, though she does not truthfully disclose her true income.
While upholding a family court order dismissing a wife’s application for maintenance under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, a division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna said:
“We find that in the present case it is not only that the appellant is highly qualified and has an earning capacity, but in fact she has been earning, though has not been inclined to truthfully disclose her true income. Such a person cannot be held entitled to maintenance.”
Case Title: FIROZ AND ANR. v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 821
Applying law is not akin to solving a mathematical theorem, it cannot be done in isolation, the Delhi High Court has observed.
“As the people of the State are affected by these legal decisions, a rigid and mathematical application of the law may lead to disastrous outcomes. For instance, if a person is the sole provider for their family and serves as the head of the household, sending them to jail could result in severe hardship for their dependents. Therefore, such a strict approach would be considered cruel and impractical,” Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar said.
Civil Services Exam 2023: Delhi High Court Admits Plea Seeking Publication Of Prelims Answer Key
Case Title: Himanshu Kumar v. UPSC & Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 822
The Delhi High Court has admitted the plea challenging the decision of Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) to publish the answer key of the preliminary examination of Civil Services Examination 2023 only after declaration of final result.
Justice Chandra Dhari Singh pronounced the judgment on maintainability of the plea which has been moved by 17 civil services aspirants seeking publication of answer key before the entire process is completed. The court had reserved the verdict on August 02.
Stray Dogs Captured For Preparation Of G20 Summit Being Released As Per Law: MCD To Delhi High Court
Case Title: ANITA SANTIAGO v. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 823
The Municipal Corporation of Delhi has told the Delhi High Court that the process of releasing stray dogs that were captured during the preparation for G20 Summit has been initiated in strict adherence with law.
The G20 Summit was held in the national capital on September 9-10.
A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula was hearing a PIL moved by an animal activist highlighting the manner in which the stray dogs were captured in Delhi during special events like Independence Day, Republic Day and most recently, the G20 Summit.
Brand Names Are Specie Of The Trademark: Delhi High Court Allows Depreciation
Case Title: Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax -1, Chandigarh Versus M/S Kuantum Papers Ltd.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 824
The Delhi High Court has allowed the depreciation and held that the expression "trademark" under Section 32(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and in the appended Explanation 3(b) would clearly include brand names.
The bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Girish Kathpalia has observed that the definition of assets, as explained in the explanation, includes commercial rights of similar nature. Brand names certainly invest in the owner's commercial rights and, therefore, will fall within the scope of intangible assets, which are amenable to depreciation under Section 32(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Case Title: PALLAVIMOHANALIASPALLAVIMENON v. RAGHU MENON
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 825
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the period of limitation for filing an appeal against a judgment or order of the family court is 30 days.
A division bench of Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Vikas Mahajan added that the delay in filing of such an appeal can be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. 1963, if sufficient cause is shown.
Case Title: SILICA UDYOG INDIA PVT LTD v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. and other connected matters
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 826
The Delhi High Court has upheld a restriction on LPG gas cylinder manufacturers, having common business ownership including sister companies, to quote only a single bid while applying in the tender floated by Hindustan Petroleum, Bharat Petroleum and Indian Oil Corporation Limited.
A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula dismissed the petitions moved by various vendors who were effectively barred from submitting bids separately through each of their manufacturing units.
Case Title: MALINI CHAUDHRI v. RANJIT CHAUDHRI & ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 827
The Delhi High Court has observed that a divorced daughter is not a “dependent” under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, and that she is not entitled to claim maintenance from the estate of her deceased father.
“An unmarried or widowed daughter is recognized to have a claim in the estate of the deceased, but a “divorced daughter” does not feature in the category of dependents entitled to maintenance,” a division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna observed.
Case Title: Rajat Kapoor v. Union of India & Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 828
The Delhi High Court has clarified that provisions under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 that are relevant for the purpose of electric vehicles are applicable to them.
A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad said that insurance cover and wearing helmet or protective gear is mandatory for e-bikes and that electric vehicles will also be subjected to the requirement of registration and penal provisions in law, as applicable to other vehicles.
No Permission To Be Granted For Felling Of Trees To Construct Houses In Delhi: High Court
Case Title: BHAVREEN KANDHARI v. SHRI C. D. SINGH AND ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 829
The Delhi High Court has said that no permission shall be granted to anyone by the city authorities for felling of trees for construction of houses in the national capital.
Justice Jasmeet Singh said that its earlier interim order, recording the Delhi Government’s stand that no permission will be granted to any individual for felling of trees and that any permission required for important projects will be intimated to court, shall continue till October 06.
Case Title: LIVING MEDIA INDIA LIMITED & ANR. v. AABTAK CHANNEL.COM (JOHN DOES) & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 830
Ruling in favour of Aaj Tak, the Delhi High Court has permanently restrained various YouTube channels and social media handles from using marks that are deceptively similar and identical to the registered trademark of the news channel.
Justice C Hari Shankar passed the permanent injunction order in favour of Living Media India Limited which runs the news channel under the registered trademark “Aaj Tak.”
It was Aaj Tak’s case that the YouTube channels and social media handles were violating its registered mark by using “Aaj Tak” mark and its various derivative forms illegally and unauthorisedly.
Case Title: X v. Y
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 831
The Delhi High Court has observed that a husband living with another woman, after long years of separation from his wife with no possibility of re-union during the pendency of the divorce petition, cannot disentitle him from seeking divorce on proven grounds of cruelty by the wife.
A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna said that the allegations of cruelty made in criminal cases by the wife should be substantiated in divorce proceedings.
Title: SANTOSH BHUTANI & ANR v. SAVITRI DEVI THROUGH LRs
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 832
The Delhi High Court has said that mere disability does not deprive an individual the constitutional right to practise any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade or business.
“Thus, it would be wholly retrograde, and in derogation of the constitutional guarantees under Articles 14, 19 & 21, to deny the right of a person suffering from any disability, to carry on any trade or business,” Justice Sachin Datta observed.
Title: Sarika Patel v. State
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 833
The Delhi High Court has asked the Municipal Corporation of Delhi to urgently take appropriate action on the “serious issue” of stray dog menace.
“…the issue of stray dog menace is a serious issue, which needs to be addressed with urgency by the concerned authority. Let a copy of this order be sent to Commissioner, MCD for taking appropriate action,” Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma said.
Case Title: GOPAL RAI v. UNION OF INDIA
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 834
The Union Government has informed the Delhi High Court that political clearance has been granted for the foreign visit of Delhi’s Environment Minister Gopal Rai for attending Columbia India Energy Dialogue in New York.
The programme is scheduled to be held in New York, United States of America on September 18.
Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta told Justice Subramonium Prasad that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, political clearance was being granted for Rai’s travel from September 15 to 21.
Title: SIDHARTHA EXTENSION POCKET C RESIDENTS WELFARE ASSOCIATION & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 835
The Delhi High Court on Friday rejected the concerns raised by certain residents from whose area a rapid metro rail would pass, observing that overarching public interest must take precedence over individual property rights.
The project in question is the Delhi-Meerut Regional Rapid Transport System, a semi-high-speed rail corridor, which will connect the cities of Delhi, Ghaziabad, and Meerut
Tiitle: Ashok Kumar Rajdev & Ors. v. Government of NCT of Delhi Through Directorate of Vigilance & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 836
The Delhi High Court has ordered that no coercive steps be taken by any authority against six PWD officials who have challenged the show cause notices issued to them by the Delhi Government’s Vigilance department over alleged gross violations of rules in the renovation work undertaken at the official residence of Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal.
Justice Chandra Dhari Singh observed that despite an undertaking given to the court by the city authorities that no coercive steps shall be taken against the officials, yet, steps were taken against them in the “teeth of the judicial order.”
Case Title: MAJOR GENERAL M.S. AHLUWALIA v. M/S TEHELKA.COM & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 837
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a plea moved by news magazine Tehelka and its co-founder Aniruddha Bahal seeking review of an order directing them to pay Rs. 2 crores damages to a former Army officer Major General MS Ahluwalia in a defamation suit filed by the latter in 2002.
“There is no error apparent on the face of record nor has the applicants been able to highlight any error or mistake which can be corrected within the ambit of review,” Justice Neena Bansal Krishna said.
Title: Sanjay Kumar Pundeer v. State
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 838
The Delhi High Court has ruled that an accused has a right to be released on default bail where the prosecution files a preliminary or incomplete chargesheet within the statutory period.
Justice Amit Sharma said the fundamental right to personal life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution and its co-relation with 167(2) of the CrPC has been clearly established by way of judicial precedents over the years.
Title: Sandhya Gupta & Anr v. State
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 839
While quashing an FIR registered by a brother against her sister, who recently completed her graduation in law, the Delhi High Court directed her to provide her assistance to its Legal Services Committee for one month.
Justice Saurabh Banerjee quashed the case filed in 2019 against the sister as well as the mother wherein the brother accused them of falsification of documents in respect of a family dispute.
Title: RAJASTHAN EQUESTRIAN ASSOCIATION v. EQUESTRIAN FEDERATION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 840
The Delhi High Court has appointed its retired judge, Justice Najmi Waziri, as the Chairman for the Extraordinary General Meeting (EGM) of Equestrian Federation of India (EFI) to be held today.
The agenda for the meeting is for amendments in the ECI calendar, participation and funding for the 19th Asian Games being held from September 23, hiring of a PR agency, digitalisation of old records and status of cases pending before the court.