Citations 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1044 to 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1078NOMINAL INDEXMr. Sujit Kumar Vs. State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) And And 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1044 Dr. Aniruddha Narayan Malpani v. Union of India 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1045 SUDARSHAN v. THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1046 MANISH v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1047 MODERN MOLD...
Citations 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1044 to 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1078
NOMINAL INDEX
Mr. Sujit Kumar Vs. State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) And And 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1044
Dr. Aniruddha Narayan Malpani v. Union of India 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1045
SUDARSHAN v. THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1046
MANISH v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1047
MODERN MOLD PLAST PVT. LTD. & ANR. v. FLIPKART INTERNET PT. LTD. & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1048
Singhal Singh Rawat versus Commissioner of Central Goods And Services Tax (CGST) 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1049
SHAHI IDGAH MANAGING COMMITTEE v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1050
MS RAJESH WADHWA AND ORS. v. THE STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. and other connected matter 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1051
X v. Y 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1052
ABHISHEK YADAV v. DELHI STATE LEGAL SERVICES AUTHORITY & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1053
X v. Y 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1054
RAJEEV KUMAR vs. THE STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1055
DIRECTOR GENERAL, PROJECT VARSHA MINISTRY OF DEFENCE (NAVY), UNION OF INDIA, NEW DELHI v. M/S NAVAYUGA-VAN OORD JV 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1056
Christian Michel James v. CBI 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1057
Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1058
ASHWINI KUMAR UPADHYAY v. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1059
Abhinav Jindal HUF versus ITO 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1060
Prashant Manchanda v. Union of India & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1061
Poonam Mittal v. Creat Ed Pvt. Ltd. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1062
Yves Saint Laurent v. Brompton Lifestyle Brands Private Limited & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1063
Rajiv Oberoi vs. Rajesh Gupta 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1064
DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT v. RAHIL HITESHBHAI CHOVATIA 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1065
SHUBHAM v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1066
SHWETA v. CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1067
Fresh Pet Private Limited vs Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1068
International Hospital vs. DCIT 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1069
GEETA DEVI v. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1070
RAVI KUMAR Versus DEPARTMENT OF SPACE AND ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1071
STATE THROUGH RPF v. DHARMENDRA @ DHARMA 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1072
Arn Infrastructures India Limited v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Circle-28 Delhi & Ors. (and connected matters) 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1073
Director of Income Tax versus ANZ Grindlays Bank 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1074
Sanat Kumar v/s Sanjay Sharma 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1075
Punjab National Bank v. Niraj Gupta & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1076
EX CHAA MOHAMMED ZULKARNAIN, 550032-Z v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1077
PUNJAB AND SINDH BANK v. SH. RAJ KUMAR 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1078
Case title: Mr. Sujit Kumar Vs. State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) And And
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1044
The Delhi High Court has quashed a First Information Report (FIR) against a 19-year old man for offence of rape against a 17-year old girl by taking into account the circumstances of the case, including that the accused and minor had entered into sexual relations consensually, begotten a child together and that the minor's mother had no objection to the quashing of the FIR.
The Court noted that the minor girl is staying with her parents along with her child and stated that if FIR is not quashed, it would “adversely affect the minor child who needs protection and care from his parents, and destroy the lives of three individuals, the couple and the new born.”
Title: Dr. Aniruddha Narayan Malpani v. Union of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1045
The Delhi High Court has refused to entertain a plea challenging the Rule which mandates that all unused gametes or embryos shall be preserved by the assisted reproductive technology clinic for use on the same recipient and shall not be used for any other couple or woman.
Title: SUDARSHAN v. THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1046
While dealing with a case under the POCSO Act, the Delhi High Court has observed that vulnerable witnesses must be protected from unnecessary re-traumatization, particularly in sensitive cases.
Emphasising that recalling a victim for additional cross-examination is not a matter to be taken lightly, Justice Amit Mahajan said:
“When a victim, especially a child or someone of tender age, is recalled to the stand, they are compelled to relive the traumatic events associated with the incident. Such repeated questioning can result in significant emotional distress and further psychological harm.”
Title: MANISH v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1047
The Delhi High Court has recently observed that a wife cannot be disentitled from claiming any maintenance merely because she seeks divorce after having left the company of her husband due to sufficient reasons.
Title: MODERN MOLD PLAST PVT. LTD. & ANR. v. FLIPKART INTERNET PT. LTD. & ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1048
The Delhi High Court has observed that the feature of latching-on offered by e-commerce platform Flipkart cannot be used to sell counterfeit products or to mislead the gullible public into purchasing products as emanating from a particular source when they do not do so.
Latching on is the feature whereby an e-commerce platform permits third party sellers to place a listing under an already listed product on the website. 'More sellers' option on a product's page allows a user to see other traders of the same product.
Case Title: Singhal Singh Rawat versus Commissioner of Central Goods And Services Tax (CGST)
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1049
Pointing out that the order cancelling the petitioner's GST registration with retrospective effect does not indicate any reason except referring to the SCN, the Delhi High Court quashed the said order and permitted the petitioner to file a response to the SCN.
Delhi High Court Dismisses Plea Against Installation Of 'Jhansi Rani' Statue Inside Shahi Idgah Park
Title: SHAHI IDGAH MANAGING COMMITTEE v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1050
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition against the installation of the statue of “Maharani of Jhansi” inside the Shahi Idgah Park situated at city's Sadar Bazar area.
Justice Dharmesh Sharma rejected the petition moved by Shahi Idgah Managing Committee seeking directions on the civic authorities to not encroach upon the Shahi Idgah, claiming it to be a waqf property.
Title: MS RAJESH WADHWA AND ORS. v. THE STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. and other connected matter
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1051
The Delhi High Court has recently called for sensitization of lawyers to ensure that the process of law is not abused by filing frivolous cases for the offences alleging sexual harassment and outraging modesty of women.
Justice Subramonium Prasad said that time has come to initiate action against individuals who file frivolous complaints under Sections 354 (outraging modesty of women), 354A (sexual harassment), 354B (assault or use of criminal force to woman with intent to disrobe), 354C (voyeurism) and 354D (stalking) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, etc. only for ulterior purpose.
Title: X v. Y
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1052
The Delhi High Court has recently observed that a husband living with another lady and having a child with her makes the wife victim of domestic violence under the Domestic Violence Act.
“No lady can tolerate that her husband is cohabiting with another lady and has a child from her. All these facts make the Respondent/Wife a victim of Domestic Violence. The contention of the Petitioner that the complaint filed by the Respondent/Wife does not come within the four corners of the DV Act cannot be accepted. The Respondent had to leave her matrimonial house because she was unable to tolerate the fact that her husband is living with another woman,” the court said.
Title: ABHISHEK YADAV v. DELHI STATE LEGAL SERVICES AUTHORITY & ANR.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1053
The Delhi High Court has issued directions for disbursal of compensation to the child victims of sexual abuse under the POCSO Act by the Delhi State Legal Services Authority (DSLSA).
A division bench comprising of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Amit Bansal inserted a sixth part (Part F) in the existing SOP framed in the backdrop of Delhi Victim Compensation Scheme, 2018, which contained five parts.
Title: X v. Y
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1054
The Delhi High Court has observed that an application under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act can only be filed before the jurisdictional magistrate.
Section 12 states that an “aggrieved person” or a Protection Officer or any other person on behalf of the aggrieved person may present an application to the Magistrate seeking one or more reliefs under the Domestic Violence Act.
Case title: RAJEEV KUMAR vs. THE STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1055
The Delhi High Court had observed that the presentation of a cheque of a time-barred debt itself revives the debt under Section 25(3) of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. It stated that the furnishing of the cheque is in itself an acknowledgement of a debt or liability and thus in case of dishonour of the cheque, the creditor can enforce legal liability and the accused cannot claim that debt has been barred by limitation.
Title: DIRECTOR GENERAL, PROJECT VARSHA MINISTRY OF DEFENCE (NAVY), UNION OF INDIA, NEW DELHI v. M/S NAVAYUGA-VAN OORD JV
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1056
The Delhi High Court has held that a document classified “Top Secret” and “Protected” under the Official Secrets Act, 1923, cannot be directed to be produced by an Arbitral Tribunal.
Justice Manoj Jain allowed the plea moved by Director General of Project Varsha, Union Ministry of Defence, against an order directing it to submit documents concerning the project in a sealed cover to the Arbitral Tribunal.
AgustaWestland Case: Delhi High Court Denies Bail To Christian Michel In CBI FIR
Case Title: Christian Michel James v. CBI
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1057
The Delhi High Court has dismissed the bail application filed by British Arms Counsultant Christian James Michel in the case registered by Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in connection with the Agusta Westland chopper scam case.
Case Title: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1058
The Delhi High Court has directed the Union Government to treat as representation a public interest litigation moved by Advocate and BJP leader Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, seeking implementation of a "Uniform Banking Code" for Foreign Exchange Transactions.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice designate, Justice Manmohan and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela directed the Centre to decide the plea after taking inputs from the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Reserve Bank of India by way of a speaking order, as expeditiously as possible.
Title: ASHWINI KUMAR UPADHYAY v. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1059
The Delhi High Court has directed the Union Government to treat as representation a PIL seeking to distinguish between “Dharma” and “Religion” and to include a chapter on the subject in the curriculum of primary and secondary schools.
Case Title: Abhinav Jindal HUF versus ITO
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1060
The Delhi High Court recently clarified that the TOLA [Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation & Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020] authorisation merely enables the competent authority to take action within the extended time period which would have otherwise been regulated by Sections 148 and 149, but does not amend the structure for approval which stands erected by virtue of Section 151.
Title: Prashant Manchanda v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1061
The Delhi High Court has halted the process of counting of votes for the ongoing Delhi University Students' Union (DUSU) elections of the varsity and other colleges in the wake of candidates indulging in acts of vandalism and defacement of public properties.
A division bench comprising of Chief Justice designate Justice Manmohan and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela directed that no counting of votes shall take place till the Court is satisfied that the posters, spraypaints and graffitis are removed and public properties are restored.
Case Title: Poonam Mittal v. Creat Ed Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1062
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar, while hearing a petition filed under Section 29A(4) and (6) of the Arbitration Act, has held that Sub-section (6) pertaining to substitute the arbitrator is there to further the purpose of Section 29A.
Case Title: Yves Saint Laurent v. Brompton Lifestyle Brands Private Limited & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1063
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar, while hearing a petition challenging the jurisdiction of the tribunal, has held that the right of a party to file a Section 14 petition seeking to terminate the mandate of the tribunal is not curtailed because the party had previously filed a Section 16 application before the tribunal and lost.
Case title: Rajiv Oberoi vs. Rajesh Gupta
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1064
The Delhi High Court has observed that to punish a party for contempt of a court's order, it has to be established that the disobedience of the order was 'wilful' and does not include acts which were done negligently or thoughtlessly.
Title: DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT v. RAHIL HITESHBHAI CHOVATIA
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1065
The Delhi High Court has recently held that bail cannot be denied under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, merely on the assumption that the property recovered from the accused must be proceed of crime.
Title: SHUBHAM v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1066
The Delhi High Court has recently observed that “teenage love” fall in a “legal grey area” and it is debatable if it can be categorized as an offence.
Justice Subramonium Prasad observed that the Court is coming across a number of cases where girls aged more than 17 years elope with boys of their choice and their parents force them to change their statement before the police when they are caught.
Title: SHWETA v. CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION & ANR.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1067
While dealing with a daughter's case to have her biological mother's name entered in the official records, the Delhi High Court recognized the fundamental right to have one's identity linked with the biological mother.
Case Title: Fresh Pet Private Limited vs Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1068
The Delhi High Court held that the once the relief is already accorded to assessee in the original assessment order, then Designated Authority (DA) can rectify the mistake apparent on record by allowing the assessee to file a fresh Form 3 under VSV Act.
Continuation Of Proceedings On Ceased Entity Is Not Curable U/s 292B: Delhi High Court
Case Title: International Hospital vs. DCIT
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1069
While following the decision of Apex Court in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi vs Maruti Suzuki (India) Limited [(2020) 18 SCC 331], the Delhi High Court held that the initiation or continuation of assessment or reassessment proceedings after a company cease to exist due to merger pursuant to a Scheme of Arrangement, is not sustainable, and cannot be cured by applying Section 292B.
Title: GEETA DEVI v. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1070
The Delhi High Court has ordered ex gratia compensation of Rs. 2.5 lakh to a mother for the death of her 5 month old infant child, who was mauled and fatally bitten by a stray dog, leading to his death in 2007.
“Notwithstanding the factual scenario of the present case, before parting, it is pertinent to observe here that the stray dog menace in Delhi is a serious issue affecting human life and dignity,” Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav observed.
Case Title: RAVI KUMAR Versus DEPARTMENT OF SPACE AND ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1071
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a Petition filed against the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT). The petitioner had challenged the results finalized by the ISRO against the post of Administrative Officer
Title: STATE THROUGH RPF v. DHARMENDRA @ DHARMA
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1072
The Delhi High Court has taken a “serious view” of the reliance upon old criminal laws by advocates to file new applications or petitions, despite implementation of new laws with effect from July 01.
Justice Chandra Dhari Singh directed the Registry to ensure that the new applications or pleas are filed under the new laws only.
Case title: Arn Infrastructures India Limited v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Circle-28 Delhi & Ors. (and connected matters)
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1073
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that the Supreme Court judgment in Abhisar Buildwell, which granted liberty to the Revenue Department to initiate reassessment proceedings under Sections 147/148 of the Income Tax Act- in case of completed/ unabated assessment, if no incriminating material is found during the search- cannot be construed to be an authority to override the limitation prescribed under Section 149 of the Act.
Case Title: Director of Income Tax versus ANZ Grindlays Bank
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1074
The Delhi High Court held that fees received by the foreign branch of banking company for extending a credit line to the account holder outside India, would not be taxable in India.
Case title: Sanat Kumar v/s Sanjay Sharma
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1075
While hearing a cheque bouncing case, the Delhi High Court reiterated that in respect of a sole proprietorship firm, the sole proprietor alone can be held responsible for cheques issued by the firm for repaying a debt.
Criminal Conviction Necessary For Forfeiture Of Employee's Gratuity: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Punjab National Bank v. Niraj Gupta & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1076
Recently, a Division Bench comprising of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Girish Kathpalia considered an appeal pertaining to the issue of alleged "moral turpitude" of an employee of Punjab National Bank (“Bank‟) under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, and also, whether the Bank was justified in forfeiting the gratuity without a criminal conviction. The Division Bench upheld the decision of the Single Judge, emphasizing that for the forfeiture of gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, a criminal conviction is necessary to establish moral turpitude.
Title: EX CHAA MOHAMMED ZULKARNAIN, 550032-Z v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1077
A division bench of the Delhi High Court comprising of Justice Rekha Palli & Justice Shalinder Kaur, while deciding a writ petition held that employee's discharge from service was legal as he failed to withdraw within time period his voluntary unwillingness to serve.
Title: PUNJAB AND SINDH BANK v. SH. RAJ KUMAR
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1078
A division bench of the Delhi High Court comprising of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait & Justice Girish Kathpalia, while deciding a Letters Patent Appeal held that the harsher punishment of dismissal from service as compared to lighter punishment of compulsory retirement for a co-delinquent in same incident is unsustainable.