Delhi High Court Weekly Round Up: March 21 To March 27, 2022

CITATIONS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 215 TO 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 241

NOMINAL INDEX

ANKUR MUTREJA v. AVIATION EMPLOYEES BUILDING SOCIETY LTD 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 215

Om Sehgal v. Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 216

M/S GARRISON ENGINEER (CENTRAL), DELHI CANTT v. M.J. PRASAD & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 217

POONAM v. STATE NCT OF DELHI 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 218

KHADI & VILLAGE INDUSTRIES COMMISSION 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 219

SETTU v. STATE NCT OF DELHI 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 220

Radha Bisht v. Union of India & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 221

Ericsson India Private Limited Versus Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 222

ANIL KUMAR @ NILLU v. STATE 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 223

OM PRAKASH GUPTA & ANR v. ANJANI GUPTA & ANR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 224

Mayur Batra Versus ACIT And Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 225

ANHEUSER-BUSCH LLC v. MR. SURJEET LAL & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 226

x v. Y 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 227

ALOK KUMAR TIWARI v. MAMTA 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 228

x v. Y 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 229

Sushil Kumar Dhar v. Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 230

M/s Pashupati Properties Estate Private Limited Versus Commissioner of Central Taxes 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 231

NEETA BHARDWAJ & ORS. v. KAMLESH SHARMA 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 232

KARAMJIT SINGH v. STATE (N.C.T. OF DELHI) 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 233

KENT RO SYSTEM LTD. & ANR. v. GATTUBHAI & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 234

IMAGINE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED v. M/S GREEN ACCESSORIES THROUGH: ITS PROPRIETOR AND ANR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 235

KINRI DHIR v. VEER SINGH 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 236

UNION OF INDIA v. CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMMISSION & ANR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 237

GURJIT SINGH SANDHU v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 238

FOOMILL PVT. LTD. v. AFFLE (INDIA) LTD. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 239

SANJAY GUPTA v. THE STATE & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 240

UNION BANK OF INDIA & ANR. v. SH D.C. CHATURVEDI & ANR. and other connected matter 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 241

JUDGMENTS/ ORDERS THIS WEEK

1. 'Apprehension Must Be Real': Delhi High Court Imposes 25K Cost On Litigant Alleging Judicial Bias Without Any Material

Case Title: ANKUR MUTREJA v. AVIATION EMPLOYEES BUILDING SOCIETY LTD

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 215

Calling it an extreme example of abuse of process, the Delhi High Court has imposed cost of Rs. 25,000 on a litigant who had accused a Trial Court judge of being biased against him. The High Court opined that the allegations were levelled without any material.

Justice C Hari Shankar was of the view that though the standard of bias is one of apprehension rather than of proof, the apprehension has to be real and not merely chimerical or fanciful or a method to somehow try one's luck before another Court.

Furthermore, the Court said that every judicial officer is expected to act without fear or favour, affection or ill will and that it is the solemn oath which every judicial officer subscribes to, at the time of entering into his office.

2. Delhi High Court Refuses To Hear Plea For Recovery Of ₹1 Trillion Debt Allegedly Owed By Pakistan To India

Case Title: Om Sehgal v. Union of India

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 216

The Delhi High Court has refused to entertain a PIL seeking recovery of ₹1 trillion debt allegedly owed by Pakistan to India. Stating that the plea involves issues pertaining to government policy, the Bench of Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Navin Chawla refused to interfere in the matter.

Om Sehgal, party in person, produced several documents to argue that India has loaned approximately ₹300 crore to Pakistan, popularly known as 'Pre-partition Debt'. He claimed that the sum to be repaid with interest now amounts to over 1 trillion rupees. However, it is averred that Pakistan has not paid even a single installment of debt or interest for any single year during past 75 years. Nevertheless, India has still not declared the debt as NPA.

He therefore sought directions to the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Ministry of Finance to take immediate steps for recovery of the sum, allegedly being used to "attack India".

3. Regional Labour Commissioner Cannot Exercise Adjudicatory Powers In Proceedings Under Sec. 33(1) Of Industrial Disputes Act: Delhi High Court

Title: M/S GARRISON ENGINEER (CENTRAL), DELHI CANTT v. M.J. PRASAD & ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 217

The Delhi High Court has observed that the Regional Labour Commissioner has limited powers in proceedings under sec. 33C(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and cannot exercise adjudicatory powers to ascertain whether the benefits claimed were due in the first place or not.

Justice Pratibha M Singh was dealing with a petition challenging the orders dated 30th October, 2019, 27th July, 2020, and 20th August, 2020 by which notice for recovery for a sum of Rs.1,95,980 and for attachment of property under Sections 136 and 139 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954, were issued to the Petitioner Management by the SDM, Delhi Cantt. and by the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Delhi.

It was the case of the Workman that the recovery of the said sum constitutes the amounts payable to him, towards Modified Assured Career Progression/ Assured Career Progression (MACP/ACP) on the ground that his reinstatement had been ordered and therefore, he ought to be deemed to have been in service as the termination was held void ab initio.

The claim of MACP/ACP benefits was allowed by the Regional Labour Commissioner under Section 33C(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Consequential orders were then passed for attachment and for recovery of the said amounts vide the impugned orders.

4. "Heinous Crime": Delhi High Court Denies Bail To Woman Accused Of Trafficking Minor

Case Title: POONAM v. STATE NCT OF DELHI

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 218

The Delhi High Court has denied bail to a woman accused of trafficking a minor tribal girl aged 14 years, noting that it was unfortunate that an innocent girl of tender age was subjected to heinous crimes and was severely abused, exploited and tortured by several people.

"The offences under Sections 370 and 376 of the I.P.C are grave and serious in nature and have adverse social implications. The petitioner has been charged for trafficking a minor girl which is in itself a heinous offence," Justice Chandra Dhari Singh observed.

The FIR was registered under Section 370 (Buying or disposing of any person as a slave), 376D (Intercourse by any member of the management or staff of a hospital with any woman in that hospital), 376(2)(n) (Rape), 323 (Voluntarily causing hurt), 506 (Criminal intimidation), 120B (Criminal conspiracy) and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

5. Trademark Infringement: Delhi High Court Grants Interim Injunction In Favour Of Khadi & Village Industries Commission

Case Title: KHADI & VILLAGE INDUSTRIES COMMISSION

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 219

The Delhi High Court has granted interim injunction in favour of Khadi & Village Industries Commission in a trademark infringement suit observing that the use of the word 'KHADI' as mark, trading style and corporate name by the defendants was illegal and unlawful.

Justice Pratibha M Singh was dealing with a suit filed by the Plaintiff-Commission, registered proprietor of various word marks and device marks bearing word 'KHADI' in Hindi and English, both in artistic form as also in logo form along with the 'Charkha Logos'.

The Defendants were a partnership firm namely 'KHADI BY HERITAGE'. It was the case of the plaintiff that the Defendants were using the trading style 'KHADI BY HERITAGE', the corporate name KHADI BY HERITAGE as also the mark 'KHADI BY HERITAGE' and the 'Charkha Logo' in various forms.

6. Framing Of Charge- Probative Value Of Materials Cannot Be Gone Into, Material Brought On Record By Prosecution To Be Accepted As True: Delhi HC

Title: SETTU v. STATE NCT OF DELHI

Citation:2022 LiveLaw (Del) 220

The Delhi High Court has observed that at the stage of framing of a charge, the probative value of materials on record cannot be gone into and that such material brought on record by the prosecution has to be accepted as true at that stage.

Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar added that it is not obligatory for the judge at the stage of framing of charges to consider in detail and weigh in a sensitive balance as to whether the facts, if proved, would be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or not.

"The standard of test and judgment which is to be finally applied before recording a finding regarding the guilt or otherwise of the accused is not exactly to be applied at this stage of deciding the matter under Section 227 or under Section 228 of the Code. But at the initial stage, if there is a strong suspicion which leads the court to think that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence, then it is not open to the court to say that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused," the Court said.

7. Examine Feasibility Of Enacting A Law For Regulating Activities Of 'Private Detectives': Delhi High Court To Centre

Case Title: Radha Bisht v. Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 221

The Delhi High Court has disposed of a PIL seeking regulation of activities of private detectives and their agencies.

While refusing to issue guidelines in the subject matter, the Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Navin Chawla observed, "It is not for the court to direct framing of law. No mandamus in this regard can be issued."

It however directed the Central Government to consider the plea as a representation and examine the aspect whether it is considered feasible to frame a law for regulation of activity of private detection.

Filed through Advocate Preeti Singh, the plea highlighted that the work of the private detectives, investigators, and their agencies remains outside the purview of any existing statutory framework.

8. Transaction, Being Revenue Neutral, Does Not Affect The Interest Of Revenue, Delhi High Court Directs Refund

Case Title: Ericsson India Private Limited Versus Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 222

The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Jasmeet Singh has directed the department to release the refund as the transaction was revenue neutral, and did not affect the interest of revenue.

The petitioner/assessee filed three writ petitions in which the court granted six weeks to the respondents/department to pass a fresh order. The court directed the department to bear in mind probable additions that may have to be made in the scrutiny assessment proceeding, based on a prima facie estimation along with the reasons. The court has further directed the department to be mindful of the quantum of additions and disallowances, if any, on the basis of estimations and their likely tax impact; and the financial wherewithal of the assessee and its ability to meet and service any demand for tax that may be raised against it.

After the judgement was rendered by the court, the department refunded Rs. 561.72 crores (including interest) to the petitioner-assessee in respect of Assessment Year 2017-2018.

9. "Inordinate Delay In Trial, Prolonged Judicial Custody": Delhi High Court Grants Bail To Man Incarcerated For Almost 8 Yrs In NDPS Case

Case Title: ANIL KUMAR @ NILLU v. STATE

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 223

The Delhi High Court has granted bail to a man incarcerated for almost 8 years in connection with a case registered under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, on account of inordinate delay in his trial and prolonged judicial custody.

Justice Subramonium Prasad observed that there was an "egregious violation of an accused's right to personal liberty and right to speedy trial" as, in the off-chance that the Petitioner is acquitted, it would entail an irretrievable loss of eight years of his life that cannot be compensated.

Emphasizing that fair, just and reasonable procedure is implicit in Article 21 and it creates a right in the accused to be tried speedily, the Court observed:

"This Court has consistently observed that while Courts must remain cognizant of the deleterious impact of drugs on society, it is also important to keep in mind that deprivation of personal liberty without the assurance of speedy trial contravenes the principles enshrined in our Constitution. In the instant case, the Petitioner has been incarcerated for almost eight years now, i.e. since 27.03.2014, for an offence that is punishable with a minimum imprisonment of ten years."

"This is an egregious violation of an accused's right to personal liberty and right to speedy trial as, in the off-chance that the Petitioner is acquitted, it would entail an irretrievable loss of eight years of his life that cannot be compensated."

10. Wife Opposing Husband's Plea For Restitution Of Conjugal Rights Does Not Affect Her Right Of Residence Under Domestic Violence Act: Delhi High Court

Case Title: OM PRAKASH GUPTA & ANR v. ANJANI GUPTA & ANR

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 224

The Delhi High Court has observed that the right of residence under the Domestic Violence Act, 2008 is exclusive to and isolated from any right that may arise under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which pertains to restitution of conjugal rights.

Justice Chandra Dhari Singh was dealing with a plea filed by a couple, challenging the order of the Additional Sessions Judge confirming the residence Orders in favour of their son's wife, Respondent No.1.

The relationship between the Respondent wife and her in-laws was cordial in the beginning, however, it started to deteriorate with time. The Respondent left her matrimonial home on 16th September, 2011. Consequently, more than 60 cases, both civil and criminal, were filed by the parties against each other. One of these cases were initiated by the Respondent-wife under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and during the proceedings the Respondent claimed right to residence in the property in question.

11. Income Tax Authority Did Not Consider The Reply Filed By Assessee; Delhi High Court Sets Aside Penalty Imposed And Directs Fresh Consideration

Case Title: Mayur Batra Versus ACIT And Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 225

The Delhi High Court has ruled that a penalty order passed by the income tax authority under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without granting a hearing to the assessee is violative of the principles of natural justice.

The Bench, consisting of Justices Manmohan and Dinesh Kumar Sharma, quashed the penalty order and remanded the matter back to the income tax authority for fresh adjudication.

The Petitioner/Assessee Mayur Batra filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court challenging the penalty levied on him under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The Assessee contended before the High Court that the income tax authority had not considered the replies filed by the Assessee nor was a personal hearing granted to the Assessee before passing the penalty order under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act.

Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 empowers the income tax authority to impose penalty on any person if it is satisfied that the person has concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income.

12. Using Recycled Bottles Of Another Manufacturer Results In Infringement & Passing Off: Delhi High Court Rules In Favour Of 'BUDWEISER'

Case Title: ANHEUSER-BUSCH LLC v. MR. SURJEET LAL & ANR.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 226

The Delhi High Court has restrained the owner of trademark 'BLACK FORT' and 'POWER COOL' from manufacturing or selling under the trademark 'BUDWEISER' in recycled bottles, or in any other manner, in respect of beer manufactured and sold by it.

Ruling in favour of Anheuser-Busch LLC, owner of trademark 'BUDWEISER', Justice Pratibha M Singh was of the view that the use of recycled 'BUDWEISER' beer bottles for the products being sold under the mark 'BLACK FORT' and 'POWER COOL' by the Defendant Company would clearly constitute `use in the course of trade'.

It added that the fact that the same were recycled bottles would not make a difference insofar as the question of infringement or passing off was concerned.

13. Accusations Of Extra Marital Relationship "Grave Assault" On Health & Character Of Spouse: Delhi High Court Upholds Divorce Decree

Case Title: x v. Y

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 227

Upholding a Family Court order granting decree of divorce in favour of the husband, the Delhi High Court has dismissed wife's appeal noting that accusations of unchastity or extra marital relationship is a grave assault on the character as well as health of the spouse against whom such allegations are made.

A division bench comprising of Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma also added that while such allegations of extra marital affairs causes mental pain, agony suffering and tantamount to cruelty, the tendency of making false allegations must be deprecated by the Courts.

The Court was of the view that the Family Court had correctly appreciated the evidence and had rightly found that the appellant wife, by making unfounded allegations amounting to character assassination against the respondent husband and his father, had inflicted mental cruelty upon the the husband.

14. Subordinate Court Cannot Initiate Contempt Proceedings Itself, Can Only Make Reference To 
High Court: Delhi High Court Reiterates

Title: ALOK KUMAR TIWARI v. MAMTA

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 228

The Delhi High Court has reiterated that the subordinate court can only make a reference to the High Court and that it cannot initiate contempt proceedings by itself.

Justice Anu Malhotra placed reliance on the judgments delivered by the Delhi High Court in Nusrat Ali v. State & Anr., Rajeev Mittal v. Sanjay Goel and Neville A Mehta v. Sanjay Goel as well as the provisions of sec. 10, 11 and 15(2) of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

The petitioner had sought the quashing of a complaint filed by the respondent under Section 10 read with Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and a notice dated April 6, 2021 issued by the Metropolitan Magistrate to the effect that the Trial Court could not have proceeded in view of the sec. 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 of the Act.

The Court noted that the reply filed by the respondent to the plea made it apparent that the respondent did not challenge the aspect of contempt proceedings being required to be initiated by the High Court court or the superior court and not by the subordinate courts.

15. 'Keeping Legal Bond Alive Would Snatch Away Opportunity To Lead Fulfilling Life': Delhi HC Waives Cooling Off Period For Divorce By Mutual Consent

Case Title: x v. Y

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 229

Passing a decree of divorce by mutual consent, the Delhi High Court has waived off the six months cooling off period as stipulated under Hindu Marriage Act after observing that keeping the couple tied to a legal bond would only mean snatching away from them the opportunity to lead a fulfilling life.

A division bench comprising of Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma set aside an order passed by the Family Court wherein the second motion petition moved by the parties jointly under sec. 13B (2) of the Act was rejected on the ground that the statutory period of six months from the date when the first motion was moved, and period of 18 months from the date of separation, had not expired.

The High Court took note of the fact that both the parties were well educated and independent individuals who had mutually decided the fate of their marriage.

16. Kashmiri Migrants Retiring From Govt Service Not Entitled To Retain Govt Accommodation: Delhi High Court Affirms

Case Title: Sushil Kumar Dhar v. Union of India

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 230

The Delhi High Court has upheld an order passed by the Single Judge, denying relief to a Kashmiri migrant who had retired from government service and sought permission to retain the government accommodation allotted to him for a period three years.

The Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Navin Chawla observed,

" We are not inclined. It is not that they (government authorities) are discriminating against you (appellant). If we permit this, what happens to other people waiting in queue for govt accommodation? Govt doesn't have unlimited accommodation."

The Bench was hearing an intra-court appeal, preferred against order dated February 16, passed by Justice V Kameswar Rao, dismissing a batch of petitions filed by government servants who are retired Kashmiri Migrants, challenging their eviction from the government quarters in Delhi.

17. GST Provisional Attachment Order Not Valid After Expiry Of 1 Year: Delhi High Court

Case Title: M/s Pashupati Properties Estate Private Limited Versus Commissioner of Central Taxes

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 231

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain has held that every provisional attachment order ceases to have effect after the expiry of a period of one year from the date the order was passed under Section 83(1) of the CGST Act.

The petitioner/assessee challenged the letter issued under Section 83 of the CGST Act, 2017 by which the respondent/department had directed the bankers of the petitioner to provisionally attach immovable property in the name of the petitioner.

The petitioner had prayed for the directions to release/de-freeze the immovable property of the petitioner that was provisionally attached.

Counsel for the respondent submitted that after December 1, 2020, no fresh attachment order was issued. He further clarified that no show cause notice under Section 74 of the CGST Act has been issued to the petitioner till date.

18. Kalkaji Temple Redevelopment: High Court Orders Delhi Police To Proceed With Eviction Of Unauthorised Occupants

Case Title: NEETA BHARDWAJ & ORS. v. KAMLESH SHARMA

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 232

In a matter concerning the redevelopment of city's Kalkaji temple, the Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi Police to proceed with the eviction of unauthorized occupants of jhuggis and dharamshalas present in the temple premises.

Justice Pratibha M Singh took into consideration the stand taken by such unauthorised occupants that they will neither vacate nor opt for the flats on rent or rain basera.

The Court said that the eviction of the said occupants had a sense of urgency in view of the upcoming Navratra festival commencing from 2nd April, 2022 and the fact that proper arrangements will have to be made for the entry and exit of the lakhs of devotees who visit the temple during the said period.

However, on March 25, the Supreme Court refused to interfere the plea challenging the eviction order.

The bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and Surya Kant, while refusing to interfere with the order, granted petitioner the liberty to approach the Administrator appointed by the High Court for redressal of grievances.

19. 'No Conscious Possession': Delhi High Court Quashes FIR U/S 25 Arms Act For Carrying Live Ammunitions In Flight Check-In Baggage

Case Title: KARAMJIT SINGH v. STATE (N.C.T. OF DELHI)

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 233

The Delhi High Court recently quashed a FIR registered under the Arms Act against a NRI, who was travelling from Delhi to Dubai in February this year, when two live ammunitions were detected in his flight check-in baggage.

While allowing the plea filed by the petitioner-accused under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of CrPC, Justice Asha Menon observed,

" There is no prima facie evidence that he had any mala fide intent in keeping the ammunition. The safety of passengers was not threatened. The possession was not conscious. "

As per the prosecution, the petitioner was unable to prove that he was not in the conscious possession of the cartridges.

20. "Gross Suppression Of Material Facts": Delhi High Court Vacates Ex-Parte Ad-Interim Injunction Granted In Favour Of Kent RO

Case Title: KENT RO SYSTEM LTD. & ANR. v. GATTUBHAI & ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 234

The Delhi High Court has vacated an ex-parte ad-interim injunction granted in favour of Kent RO System Limited on the grounds of gross suppression and concealment of material facts.

Justice Amit Bansal was dealing with a suit filed by Kent RO System Limited claiming that the trademark KENT was adopted by it in the year 1988 in respect of products relating to petroleum conservation. In 1999, the plaintiffs started using the mark KENT in respect of its water purifier systems.

The defendant no 1 claimed to own and control an enterprise, Kent Appliances. The defendants no.2 and 3 carried on business under the name and style of Shilpa Electricals in respect of sale of electrical and home appliances.

It was the plaintiff's case that besides holding the trade mark registration for the mark KENT, it also held the copyright registration in respect of its logo. In and around March, 2019, the plaintiffs came to know of the defendants selling products such as thermo flasks and other home appliances under the identical mark of KENT.

21. Delhi High Court Grants ₹15 Lakhs Monetary Damages To Owner Of Trademark 'BOAT' Over Seizure Of Counterfeit Products

Case Title: IMAGINE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED v. M/S GREEN ACCESSORIES THROUGH: ITS PROPRIETOR AND ANR

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 235

The Delhi High Court has ordered a total of Rs. 15 lakhs monetary damages to be paid the owner of trademark 'BOAT' over seizure of various counterfeit products based on inspection made by Court appointed Local Commissioners.

Justice Pratibha M Singh was of the view that the Defendants had blatantly infringed the trademark and logos as also the packaging of the Plaintiff's products.

Therefore, considering the quantum of counterfeit products which were seized, the Court decreed the suit against the two defendants no. 1 and 6. While the suit was decreed against the Defendant No.1 for a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs, the same was done against the Defendant No. 6 for a sum of Rs.10 lakhs.

The Court directed the said defendants to make payment of the said amount to the Plaintiff within a period of two weeks. It however said that since no products were found in the premises of Defendant No.3, no monetary damages were being imposed on it.

22. Delhi High Court Upholds Right Of Putative Father To Visit Minor Child

Case Title: KINRI DHIR v. VEER SINGH

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 236

The Delhi High Court has observed that a putative father is entitled to visitation rights and that a minor child must not be insulated from parental touch and influence of other parent for his personal growth and development.

"It cannot be disputed that the respondent, being a putative father shall be entitled to visitation rights. While determining and granting such rights, more so when the child is of less than three years of age, surely his well-being / welfare is of paramount importance. At the same time, the minor must not be insulated from parental touch [Ref: Ruchi Majoo (supra)] and influence of the other parent for healthy growth of child and development of his personality," the Court said.

Noting that the tender age of the minor child, who was less than three years old, Justice V Kameswar Rao modified the impugned order dated October 28, 2021 passed by the Family Court which had granted visitation rights of the minor child to the putative father for two hours every day.

The Court modified the order and directed that instead of daily, the respondent putative father shall have visitation rights on alternate weekdays being three days in a week.

23. Enforcement Directorate Exempted From RTI Act Except When Information Relates To Allegations Of Corruption Or Human Rights Violation: Delhi HC

Case Title: UNION OF INDIA v. CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMMISSION & ANR

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 237

The Delhi High Court has observed that the Enforcement Directorate being an intelligence and security organization as specified in Second Schedule of Right to Information Act is exempted from the purview of the Act except when the information pertains to allegation of corruption and human rights violation.

Justice Manmohan and Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain was dealing with a plea concerning an RTI application filed by a Superintendent (respondent in the matter) working in the Administration with of Enforcement Directorate.

The said application sought copies of all the seniority list in respect of Lower Division Clerks (LDCs) for the period of 1991 till date as also the copies of proposal for promotion of LDCs placed before the DPC together with copies of the Minutes of the Meetings and copies of the promotion orders issued on the recommendations of the DPC from time to time.

The CIC had directed the said information to be provided to the respondent. However, the said order was challenged by the Union of India before a Single Judge which had dismissed the said plea vide order dated 7th December 2018.

24. "Prima Facie Offence Under Arms Act": Delhi High Court Refuses To Quash FIR Against Canadian Citizen With 50 Live Cartridges In Flight Baggage

Case Title: GURJIT SINGH SANDHU v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 238

The Delhi High Court has refused to quash an FIR registered against a Canadian citizen whose flight check-in baggage was found with 50 live cartridges. The Court observed that prima facie, there was commission of offence under the Arms Act, 1959.

Justice Subramonium Prasad dismissed a petition filed seeking quashing of an FIR registered under sec. 25 of the Arms Act. The petitioner being a Canadian citizen, held an Overseas Citizen of India card.

According to the facts of the case, the petitioner had arrived in Delhi from Canada in February last year and was supposed to catch a connecting flight from New Delhi to Amritsar on February 10, 2021.

25. Mere Use Of Word 'Arbitration' In Agreement Clause Heading Would Not Infer Existence Of Agreement Between Parties To Resolve Disputes Through Arbitration: Delhi HC

Title: FOOMILL PVT. LTD. v. AFFLE (INDIA) LTD.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 239

The Delhi High Court has observed that the mere use of word 'Arbitration' in the heading in the Clause of Agreement would not lead to the inference that there exists an agreement between such parties seeking resolution of disputes through arbitration.

Justice Mukta Gupta referred to a 2014 decision of the Delhi High Court in Avant Garde Clean Room & Engg. Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. Ind Swift Limited wherein the Court had dealt with the issue as to whether the use of word 'Arbitration' in the heading of an Agreement would entail existence of an arbitration agreement.

The Court was dealing with a plea seeking appointment of an Arbitrator for resolving the disputes in relation to the software development arising out of the agreement dated 29th July 2021 between the parties and costs.

26. Negotiable Instruments Act| Person Bound To Face Criminal Trial If Cheque Amount Not Paid Despite Notice & Opportunity To Pay: Delhi High Court

Title: SANJAY GUPTA v. THE STATE & ANR.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 240

Emphasising that once a person issues a cheque it must be honoured, the Delhi High Court has observed that such a person is bound to face criminal trial and consequences in case the cheque amount is not paid despite issuance of notice and opportunity to pay the said amount.

Noting that the Negotiable Instruments Act provides sufficient opportunity to a person who issues the cheque, Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar said thus:

"Once a cheque is issued by a person, it must be honored and if it is not honored, the person is given an opportunity to pay the cheque amount by issuance of a notice and if he still does not pay, he is bound to face the criminal trial and consequences."

The Court was of the view that once issuance of a cheque and signature are admitted, the presumption of a legally enforceable debt in favour of the holder of the cheque arises.

27. Gratuity Can Be Forfeited If Employee Terminated For Causing Damage To Employer's Property, Forfeiture Not To Exceed Extent Of Loss: Delhi HC

Case Title: UNION BANK OF INDIA & ANR. v. SH D.C. CHATURVEDI & ANR. and other connected matter

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 241

The Delhi High Court has observed that any employer can forfeit the gratuity of an employee if the employee is terminated for any act or omission or negligence causing any damage or loss to the property belonging to the employer.

Justice Pratibha M Singh however added that such forfeiture can only be to the extent of the damage or loss caused, and not beyond that.

The Court was dealing with two petitions pertaining to disputes between employee and Union Bank of India. In one of the petitions, a chargesheet was issued against the employee alleging that loans were issued by him accommodating certain parties which caused losses to the Bank.

In another matter, chargesheet was issued against the employee alleging that he was involved in lending loans in blatant violation of lending norms without completing the requisite formalities, sanctioning higher amounts of loans to borrowers whose earlier loans were either NPA or overdue, which allegedly caused losses to the Bank.

Thus, the two aspects to be considered in the cases by Court was, First, whether forfeiture of gratuity is permissible and, if so, in what manner is it to be effected and Secondly, whether long delay in approaching to Controlling Authority can result in rejection of the claim for gratuity.

IMPORTANT WEEKLY UPDATES

1. "Where Is Communal Intent In Speech?" Delhi High Court Reserves Judgment On Brinda Karat's Appeal Seeking FIR Against Anurag Thakur & Parvesh Verma

The Delhi High Court has reserved its judgment on a plea filed by CPM leader Brinda Karat and politician KM Tiwari against a trial court order rejecting her plea for registration of FIRs against BJP leaders Anurag Thakur and Parvesh Verma for allegedly delivering hate speeches in the year 2020.

The plea refers to various speeches made by the two politicians including the speech dated January 27, 2020 given by Anurag Thakur at a rally shouting the slogan "desh ke gaddaron ko, goli maaron saalon ko".

Reference was also made to another speech made by Parvesh Verma dated January 27-28, 2020, while campaigning for Bhartiya Janata Party and subsequently in an interview given to ANI.

The plea alleges that the speech threatened use of force to remove protestors who were protesting at Shaheen Bagh in the wake of Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and to promote hatred and enmity against Muslim persons by portraying them as invaders who will enter houses and rape and kill people.

Questioning the petitioners' counsel over the criminality attached to the alleged hate speeches, Justice Chandra Dhari Singh orally remarked thus:

"Was the speech made in front of agitation point? That is why I am saying, Ye log, indicate to whom? Not for any particular community. Ye log can be anybody. How you can translate or think about this? There is no direct instigation. I am not on the point what it was meant for because we are in this writ petition is dealing only with legal issue."

He added "Where is the communal intent in that speech?"

2. Your Steps Not Yielding Results, How Can Same Problem Recur Year After Year? Delhi HC To Municipal Corporations Over Mosquito Infestation

The Delhi High Court has reiterated its directions for incorporating a 'common protocol' to be followed by all the local authorities for dealing with the menace of mosquito infestation and spreading of vector borne diseases in the national capital.

The Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Jasmeet Singh expressed its dissatisfaction over the status report filed by the municipal corporations in terms of its orders dated January 14, 2022 and February 5, 2022.

The bench had taken suo moto cognizance of the issue of large scale mosquito breeding in the city, resulting in vector borne diseases such as Malaria, Chikungunya and Dengue every year.

3. Gravity Of Offence Can't Be Overlooked While Applying Triple Test For Bail: Prosecution Opposes Sharjeel Imam's Plea In Anti-CAA Speeches Case

The State has opposed Sharjeel Imam's bail plea before the Delhi High Court in a case relating to the alleged inflammatory speeches made by him in Aligarh Muslim University and Jamia area in Delhi against the Citizenship Amendment Act.

The prosecution has argued that the severity and gravity of the offence which Imam has been charged with cannot be overlooked in any manner before applying the Triple test for bail.

Imam was booked vide FIR 22/2020 by the Delhi Police. The alleged offence under UAPA was added later.

The Trial Court had framed charges against Imam in the matter under Sections 124A (sedition), 153A (Promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, etc.), 153B (Imputations, assertions prejudicial to national-integration), 505 (Statements conducing to public mischief) of the IPC along with Section 13 (Punishment for unlawful activities) of the UAPA.