Citations 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1017 to 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1043NOMINAL INDEXHari Kishan Sharma vs. Govt of NCT of Delhi 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1017 VIJAY KAUSHIK Versus COMMISSIONER OF POLICE 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1018 M/S Chauhan Construction Co. versus Commissioner of DGST and Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1019 PURVI DELHI VAIDEHI TRUST (PDVT) vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 2024 LiveLaw (Del)...
Citations 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1017 to 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1043
NOMINAL INDEX
Hari Kishan Sharma vs. Govt of NCT of Delhi 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1017
VIJAY KAUSHIK Versus COMMISSIONER OF POLICE 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1018
M/S Chauhan Construction Co. versus Commissioner of DGST and Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1019
PURVI DELHI VAIDEHI TRUST (PDVT) vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1020
The Milestone Aviation Asset Holding Group vs. ACIT 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1021
ANASTASIA MIRJANA JOJIC OBEROI & ORS. v/s RAJARAMAN SHANKAR & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1022
Amit Arora v. ED and other connected matter 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1023
AMIT KATYAL v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT GOVERNMENT OF INDIA 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1024
Munna v. MCD 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1025
X v. State & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1026
RB v. STATE NCT OF DELHI 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1027
WARNER BROS. ENTERTAINMENT INC. & ORS. v. MOVIESMOD.BET & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1028
PRATEEK & ORS. v. STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1029
ADNAN NISAR v. ED & other connected matters 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1030
DR ANKIT SHARMA & ORS versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. and other connected matters 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1031
Prime Interglobe Private Limited v. Super Milk Products Private Limited 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1032
DELHI SUBORDINATE SERVICES SELECTION BOARD AND ANR. v. VISHNU KUMAR BADETIYA 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1033
JAGTAR SINGH JOHAL @ JAGGI v. NIA and other connected matters 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1034
Kaira District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Ltd & Anr. cs. Bio Logic And Psychotropics India Private Ltd & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1035
M/s PGL Estatecon Pvt. Ltd. vs. M/s Jyoti Enterprises 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1036
Grand Motors Sale And Services Pvt Ltd v. VE Commercial Vehicles Ltd 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1037
SURMILA v. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1038
Swati Maliwal v. State and other connected matter 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1039
HYATT INTERNATIONAL SOUTHWEST ASIA vs. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1040
M/s SS Enterprises versus Principal Commissioner 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1041
PCIT versus RELIGARE SECURITIES LTD. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1042
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.v. EX/NK CHINNA VEDIYAPPAN 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1043
Income Tax Refund Can't Be Denied To Taxpayer For Discrepancy In Form 26AS Filed: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Hari Kishan Sharma vs. Govt of NCT of Delhi
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1017
While observing that tax was duly deducted by the Land Acquisition Collector but was not disclosed for some reasons and hence the credit was not reflected in Form 26AS, the Delhi High Court held that the assessee/ petitioner cannot be penalized for the mere reason that the Form 26AS suffered from a discrepancy.
Case Title: VIJAY KAUSHIK Versus COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1018
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a Writ Petition which challenged a judgement of the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Petitioner had sought seniority from the year 2007 despite being appointed in the year 2009, contending that he was entitled for appointment in the year 2007 itself.
A Division Bench of Justices Suresh Kumar Kait and Girish Kathpalia held that the petitioner who participated in the selection process for the post of Sub Inspector had no vested right to claim appointment for the recruitment process of 2007, since he was already appointed in the year 2009.
Case Title: M/S Chauhan Construction Co. versus Commissioner of DGST and Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1019
Finding that the Show Cause Notice (SCN) did not mention any particulars, which would provide any clue to the taxpayer/ petitioner as to the reasons for cancellation of its GST registration, the Delhi High Court quashed the SCN as well as the order, by which the GST Commissioner had cancelled the GST registration of petitioner with retrospective effect.
No Vested Legal Right To Allotment Of Public Site By Merely Making Online Booking: Delhi High Court
Case title: PURVI DELHI VAIDEHI TRUST (PDVT) vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1020
The Delhi High Court has observed a vested legal right for allotment of a public site/public park does not arise merely because the site has been booked online by paying the required amount.
“There is no vested legal right to allotment of a public site or park by merely applying 'online' followed by payment of the booking amount,” the court said.
Case Title: The Milestone Aviation Asset Holding Group vs. ACIT
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1021
The Delhi High Court held that consideration received by Assessee from aircraft leasing activity is not taxable as royalty either u/s 9(1)(vi) of Income Tax Act or under India-Ireland DTAA.
Case title: ANASTASIA MIRJANA JOJIC OBEROI & ORS. v/s RAJARAMAN SHANKAR & ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1022
In an interim order passed last week, the Delhi High Court has restrained the transfer of Oberoi group's former chairman late PRS Oberoi's shares in EIH Limited–which runs the Oberoi and Trident hotel chain–and its two holding companies, except one specific class of shares, after Oberoi's daughter moved a lawsuit seeking an injunction on the said transfer.
Liquor Policy: Delhi High Court Grants Bail To Amandeep Singh Dhall, Amit Arora
Title: Amit Arora v. ED and other connected matter
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1023
The Delhi High Court has granted bail to businessmen Amandeep Singh Dhall and Amit Arora in the money laundering case connected to the alleged excise policy scam case.
Arora was granted interim bail on medical grounds in August. He is the director of Gurugram-based company Buddy Retail Pvt. Ltd. On the other hand, Dhall, who is the businessman and director of Brindco Sales Private Limited, was denied bail in the CBI case in June.
Land For Jobs Scam: Delhi High Court Grants Bail To Lalu Yadav's Aide Amit Katyal In PMLA Case
Title: AMIT KATYAL v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1024
The Delhi High Court has granted bail to RJD chief Lalu Prasad Yadav's close aide Amit Katyal in a money laundering case related to the alleged land-for-jobs scam case.
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna observed that the investigations qua Katyal already stood concluded and the Prosecution Complaint was also filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED).
Title: Munna v. MCD
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1025
The Delhi High Court has directed the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) to pay Rs. 10 lakh as compensation to the parents of a minor child, who passed away after a lantern/slab fell on him from the premises owned by MCD.
A single bench of Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav found the MCD to be negligent in maintaining safe conditions of its premises and invoked the maxim 'res ipsa loquitur' to place liability on the MCD.
Title: X v. State & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1026
The Delhi High Court has recently directed the DSLSA to pay Rs. 9.65 lakh of compensation to a minor rape victim who was sexually abused and assaulted by her father in 2018. The minor was 17 years of age at the time of the incident.
Title: RB v. STATE NCT OF DELHI
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1027
The Delhi High Court has recently set aside a trial court order framing charges against a mother for failing to report offences under POCSO Act against her 16-year-old daughter who was allegedly raped by her father.
Justice Anish Dayal observed that the mother who was herself the victim of sexual abuse by her husband, had become the accused by applying Section 21 of the POCSO Act, wholly insulated from the background facts and circumstances of the case.
Title: WARNER BROS. ENTERTAINMENT INC. & ORS. v. MOVIESMOD.BET & ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1028
The Delhi High Court has recently passed a dynamic+ injunction to protect the copyrighted works of Warner Bros, Netflix, Disney and other global entertainment companies.
Justice Saurabh Banerjee was dealing with a suit filed by global entities against 45 rogue websites seeking to restrain them from hosting and streaming their copyrighted works in various movies and shows.
Title: PRATEEK & ORS. v. STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1029
The Delhi High Court has recently observed that it is an “abysmal state of affairs” that litigants have resorted to preferring false complaints in matrimonial disputes against the opposite party, thereby making a mockery of the judicial system.
Title: ADNAN NISAR v. ED & other connected matters
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1030
The Delhi High Court has held that an offence committed in a foreign country under laws of that nation can be treated as a predicate offence under PMLA if it has “cross border implications” and the proceeds of the crime have travelled to India.
Case Title: DR ANKIT SHARMA & ORS versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. and other connected matters
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1031
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a batch of petitions filed by the Petitioners challenging the common order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) which upheld the decision of Employees State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) Dental College and Hospital in Rohini, Delhi. ESIC had reduced the service bond period to one year From Five/Three Years after attaining the qualification as per the revised policy.
Case Title: Prime Interglobe Private Limited v. Super Milk Products Private Limited
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1032
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar, while hearing a Section 34 petition, has held that any party can benefit from the second part of Section 34(3) when calculating the limitation period. The statute's language does not specify who should request under Section 33. Therefore, the benefit of calculating the limitation period from the date of disposal of the Section 33 application is available to both parties.
Delhi Is Of Migrants, Benefit Of Reservation To Any Category Can't Be Denied: High Court
Title: DELHI SUBORDINATE SERVICES SELECTION BOARD AND ANR. v. VISHNU KUMAR BADETIYA
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1033
The Delhi High Court has recently held that the national capital, being a Union Territory, is of migrants and benefit of reservation to any particular category cannot be denied.
“It is also not in dispute, NCT of Delhi being Union Territory for all purposes, except for running administration, is of migrants, therefore, benefit of reservation to any category cannot be denied,” a division bench comprising Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Girish Kathpalia said.
Delhi High Court Denies Bail To British National Jagtar Singh Johal In Murder, UAPA Cases
Title: JAGTAR SINGH JOHAL @ JAGGI v. NIA and other connected matters
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1034
The Delhi High Court has denied bail to British national Jagtar Singh Johal in seven murder and UAPA cases being probed by the National Investigation Agency (NIA).
A division bench comprising Justice Prathiba M Singh and Justice Amit Sharma dismissed the bail appeals filed by Johal in the UAPA cases alleging series of targeted killings during 2016-2017 in Ludhiana and Jalandhar Districts of Punjab.
Case title: Kaira District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Ltd & Anr. cs. Bio Logic And Psychotropics India Private Ltd & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1035
The Delhi High Court has issued a permanent injunction in favour of Amul, against businesses dealing in pharmaceutical products, from using 'AMUL' trademark on their products. The Court imposed costs and damages of Rs. 5 lakh against them for infringing Amul's well-known trademark.
Delhi High Court Stays Arbitral Awards Due To Unilateral Appointment Of Arbitrator
Case Title: M/s PGL Estatecon Pvt. Ltd. vs. M/s Jyoti Enterprises
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1036
The Delhi High Court bench presided by Justice C. Hari Shankar has stayed the execution of two arbitral awards, holding that the unilateral appointment of the arbitrator by the respondent, without court intervention under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and in violation of Section 12(5) of the Act, rendered the arbitration proceedings invalid ab initio.
Case Title: Grand Motors Sale And Services Pvt Ltd v. VE Commercial Vehicles Ltd
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1037
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar, while hearing a Section 11 petition, has held that when the seat of the arbitration is contractually fixed, only those Courts having territorial jurisdiction over the seat would have the curial jurisdiction over the arbitral proceedings. Following the dictum in BGS SGS Soma JV v. NHPC Ltd, the court held that the High Court of Delhi has the jurisdiction to entertain the Section 34 petition.
Title: SURMILA v. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE & ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1038
Calling it an “urban planning failure”, the Delhi High Court has said that the issue of parking space in residential colonies in the national capital requires a policy based response from the municipal authorities.
“The absence of dedicated parking spaces in residential colonies is a civic issue that requires a policy- based response from municipal authorities rather than judicial intervention in individual disputes,” Justice Sanjeev Narula said.
Case Title: Swati Maliwal v. State and other connected matter
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1039
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a plea filed by AAP Rajya Sabha MP Swati Maliwal challenging a trial court order framing corruption charges against her for allegedly abusing her official position by illegally appointing various acquaintances, including AAP workers, in the Chairperson of Delhi Commission for Women (DCW) between August 6, 2015 to August 1, 2016.
Maliwal was then the Chairperson of DCW.
Case Title: HYATT INTERNATIONAL SOUTHWEST ASIA vs. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1040
Referring to Article 7 of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) entered into between the Government of United Arab Emirates and the Republic of India, the Delhi High Court held that the right of the Holding company (source State) to allocate or attribute income to the Permanent Establishment (PE) cannot be restricted on the basis of the global income or loss that may have been earned or incurred by a cross-border entity.
Case Title: M/s SS Enterprises versus Principal Commissioner
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1041
Finding that the Show cause notice (SCN) issued to the petitioner/assessee did not set out any intelligible reasons for cancellation of its GST registration, the Delhi High Court quashed the said SCN.
Case Title: PCIT versus RELIGARE SECURITIES LTD.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1042
Emphasizing that shares which is subject to a lock-in stipulation, could not be sold in an open market, the Delhi High Court held that valuation report obtained by the employer for ascertaining its withholding tax obligations during allotment of such shares to its employees as a perquisite, cannot be considered for purpose of Fair Market Value (FMV) of those shares.
Title: UNION OF INDIA & ORS.v. EX/NK CHINNA VEDIYAPPAN
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1043
A division bench of the Delhi High Court comprising of Justice Rekha Palli & Justice Shalinder Kaur, while deciding a writ petition held that the Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961 are also applicable to DSC service, hence allowed the condonation of shortfall in DSC service for the pension benefits.