NOMINAL INDEXCitations 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 728 TO 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 822NAMANPREET S DHILLON v. STATE 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 728HIMANSHU GOEL v. THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) AND ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 729NATIONAL SMALL INDUSTRIES CORPORATION LTD. v. NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR SCHEDULED CASTES & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 730SOUMITRA KUMAR NAHAR v. PARUL NAHAR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 731ANIL SAMANIYA...
NOMINAL INDEX
Citations 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 728 TO 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 822
NAMANPREET S DHILLON v. STATE 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 728
HIMANSHU GOEL v. THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) AND ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 729
NATIONAL SMALL INDUSTRIES CORPORATION LTD. v. NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR SCHEDULED CASTES & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 730
SOUMITRA KUMAR NAHAR v. PARUL NAHAR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 731
ANIL SAMANIYA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 732
Shyama Power India Ltd. v. Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 733
Buildmyinfra Private Limited versus Gyan Prakash Mishra 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 734
KHADI & VILLAGE INDUSTRIES COMMISSION v. RAMAN GUPTA AND OTHERS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 735
SH D.C. NARNOLIA v. CANARA BANK AND ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 736
MEET MALHOTRA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 737
FAUJI & ORS. v. THE STATE(GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) AND ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 738
Ajit Kumar v. GNCTD 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 739
PCIT Versus Mamta Agarwal 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 740
Jasmine Kaur Chhabra v. UOI & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 741
KANWAL NAIN SINGH MOKHA v. REKHA KHURANA 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 742
N.D. TYAGI v. POWER FINANCE CORPORATION LTD. & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 743
DWARKA COURT BAR ASSOCIATION v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 744
GURMITO v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 745
NEELAM CHAUHAN v. THE STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 747
NEW RISE FOUNDATION REGD. CHARITABLE TRUST v. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION DELHI AND ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 748
Piyush Kumar Dutt v. Vishal Mega Mart Pvt. Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 749
Airport Authority of India (Kolkata Airport) v. TDI International Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 750
Court on its own motion v. GNCTD 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 751
DECATHLON SPORTS INDIA PVT. LTD. v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 753
Anil v. State 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 754
M/s Best Buildwell Private Limited Versus ITO 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 755
AKASH AGGARWAL v. FLIPKART INTERNET PRIVATE LIMITED AND ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 756
V v. State 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 757
KAMINI ARYA THROUGH PEROKAR v. THE STATE NCT OF DELHI 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 758
M/s Expeditors International Of Washingtion, Inc. Versus ACIT 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 759
SUNIL KUMAR ALIAS TITU v. STATE OF UT OF CHANDIGARH 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 760i
SANTOSH KUMAR JHA v. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH THE STANDING COUNSEL 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 761
THEOS FOOD PVT. LTD. & ORS. v. THEOBROMA FOODS PVT. LTD. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 762
M/s Scholastic India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. versus Kanta Batra 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 763
Miss Indira Uppal Versus UOI 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 764
SARIKA@RADHA@LOVANYA T v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 765
DINESH KUMAR v. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 766
GHULAM SARWAR v. SMT. NILOFAR KHAN & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 767
Trueblue India LLP Vs Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 768
Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -7 versus TV Today Network Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 769
SULEMAN v. THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 771
MAN SINGH v. THE STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 772
URMILA & ORS. v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 773
EXTREME COATING PRIVATE LTD v. JOTUN INDIA PRIVATE LTD. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 774
Rohit Madan v Union of India and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 775
VIFOR INTERNATIONAL LTD. v. COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 777
Shristi Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. versus Ircon International Limited 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 778
TRIDENT INFOSOL PVT LTD v UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 779
NATIONAL BOARD OF EXAMINATION v. ASSOCIATION OF MD PHYSICIANS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 780
RAHUL MEHRA v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 782
FLIPKART INTERNET PRIVATE LTD. v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 783
MOHD AZIZUL v. STATE 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 784
SYED SHAHNAWAZ HUSSAIN v. THE STATE & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 785
Vinod Kumar Kila v. CBI 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 786
SHEIKH ISHRAFIL v. STATE (NCT) OF DELHI 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 787
JOGINDER SINGH RAINA v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 789
KAJAL v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 790
Ashish Kumar Srivastava v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 791
AUSTIN NICHOLS & CO INC & ANR v. GWALIOR DISTILLERIES PRIVATE LTD 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 792
FIJA & ANR. v. State 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 793
ZAHOOR AHMAD SHAH WATALI v. NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 794
KAILASH SEWANI v. MANISH KUMAR CHAUDHARY 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 795
Kapri International Pvt. Ltd. versus Commissioner of Income Tax 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 796
Ernst and Young U.S. LLP versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 798
Whatsapp LLC v. CCI, Facebook v. CCI 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 799
Jahid v. State 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 800
Overnite Express Ltd v. DMRC 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 801
Case Title: DEVASRI BALI v. CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDRY EDUCATION & ANR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 802
Diageo Brands BV & Anr. v. Great Galleon Ventures Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 804
Commissioner of CGST Delhi East Versus Anand and Anand 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 805
HANZLA IQBAL v. THE STATE & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 806
VISHV MOHAN v. DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING AND ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 807
RAJINDER SINGH BHATIA v. MANJU BHATIA 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 808
SMT. SHIPALI SHARMA v. State & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 809
VED PRAKASH MANCHANDA v. DELHI URBAN SHELTER IMPROVEMENTBOARD & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 810
SHRI B K PARCHURE v. STATE 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 811
ANTRIX CORPORATION LTD. v. DEVAS MULTIMEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 812
SGT. NAVNEET KUMAR SINGH (977823-F) v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 813
OM PRAKASH v. THE DELHI PINJRAPOLE SOCIETY (REGO.) 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 814
BHARTI SAHANI v. STATE (GOVT. OFNCT OF DELHI) 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 815
Rithala Education Society Versus Union Of India 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 816
PVR Ltd. Versus Commissioner Of Income Tax 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 817
Babuddin v. State 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 818
Royal Orchids versus Kulbir Singh Kohli & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 819
ANIL KUMAR & ORS. v. THE STATE & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 820
SANJAY SARIN v. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, CANARA BANK & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 821
NEETU SINGH & ANR. v. TELEGRAM FZ LLC & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 822
1. Conscious Possession Is 'Core Ingredient' To Establish Guilt Under Arms Act: Delhi HC Quashes FIR Against US Citizen Carrying Cartridge At IGI Airport
CASE TITLE: NAMANPREET S DHILLON v. STATE
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 728
The Delhi High Court has quashed an FIR registered against a US citizen found in possession of live ammunition at the Indira Gandhi International Airport at New Delhi, without any valid license.
Justice Jasmeet Singh granted relief while noting that 'conscious possession' is a core ingredient to establish guilt for offences under the Arms Act, 1959. The bench however ordered the Petitioner to provide a kit of Mosquito Repellent and Hand Sanitizer to each student of a primary school.
"Since the police machinery has been put in motion on account of the acts of commission & omission on behalf of the petitioner and useful time of the police which could have been utilised for important matters has been misdirected towards these petty matters, therefore, the petitioner must do some social good for the society," the bench said.
2. Delhi High Court Quashes 'Misguided' Rape FIR Filed By Woman Based On Compromise, Asks Her To Do Social Service In Blind School For Two Months
Case Title: HIMANSHU GOEL v. THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) AND ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 729
The Delhi High Court has recently quashed a rape FIR registered by a woman under misguidance and wrong advice after a compromise deed was filed by the parties, subject to the condition that she will do social service in a blind school for two months.
Justice Jasmeet Singh was of the view that the woman had been very unfair in her conduct and that the criminal justice system was put in motion on account of her whims and fancies which need to be deprecated.
"However, I cannot lose sight of the fact that respondent No. 2 is staying with her family and has 4 children (one daughter aged 12 years and a set of triplets aged around 3 years.)," the Court said.
3. National Commission For Scheduled Castes Not Equivalent To Civil Court, Can't Issue Directions After Deciding Inter Se Rights Of Parties: Delhi HC
Case Title: NATIONAL SMALL INDUSTRIES CORPORATION LTD. v. NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR SCHEDULED CASTES & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 730
The Delhi High Court has observed that the National Commission for Scheduled Castes cannot issue directions after deciding the inter se rights of the parties, like a civil court.
Justice Rekha Palli observed:
"Merely because the Commission, for the purpose of carrying out investigations or enquiring into any complaint, has the powers of a Civil Court trying a suit and, therefore, is entitled to issue directions inter alia for enforcing the attendance of any person from any part of the country, receiving evidence on affidavits, cannot imply that the Commission is equivalent to a Civil Court or that it can like a Civil Court issue directions after deciding the inter se rights of the parties."
4. Rejection Of Maintenance Application In Divorce Proceedings Does Not Disentitle Wife To Seek Maintenance U/S 125 CrPC: Delhi High Court
Case Title: SOUMITRA KUMAR NAHAR v. PARUL NAHAR
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 731
The Delhi High Court has observed that the pendency of a divorce petition and rejection of an application for maintenance in such petition, would not disentitle the wife to seek maintenance under Section 125 of CrPC.
Justice Yogesh Khanna was dealing with a plea filed by a husband challenging the order and the maintenance petition under Sec. 125 Cr.P.C. pending adjudication before the Family Court.
It was the husband's case that the impugned order and the maintenance petition were in direct violation of the consent order duly clarified and reiterated by a Division Bench of High Court and the judgment passed by the Supreme Court. It was submitted that the Family Court, without appreciating the orders passed on the issue, in a mechanical manner had dismissed the application filed by the husband for dismissal of the maintenance petition filed by the respondent wife.
5. State Has Expertise & Confidential Info To Evaluate Threat Perception Of Individuals; Its Job To Protect Life, Limb & Property Of Its Subjects: Delhi HC
Case Title: ANIL SAMANIYA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 732
The Delhi High Court has observed that since the State has expertise and confidential information to evaluate threat perceptions of individuals, it is the State's job to protect the life, limb and property of its subjects.
Justice Jasmeet Singh dismissed a plea filed by a retired police official who was the Investigating Officer of the famous Nitish Katara murder case, where the son and nephew of Former Minister D.P. Yadav were convicted and sentenced to 25 years in jail.
It was the petitioner's case that he was provided a security cover since 2002 and was to be withdrawn later when he retired on November 30, 2021.
On November 24, 2021, the High Court had provided the petitioner with security cover till the next date of hearing and issued notice to the Respondents.
6. If The Imposition Of LD Was Contingent On Extension Of Time, Recovery Of LD Is Not Time Barred: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Shyama Power India Ltd. v. Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 733
The High Court of Delhi has held that the arbitrator cannot reject the claim of a party for refund of Liquidated Damages (LD) as barred by time if it was inextricably linked to the issue of Extension of Time (EOT) on which the decision of the competent authority was pending.
The Bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru held that the period of limitation for the purpose of refund of LD would only begin from the date of the decision on the issue of EOT if the imposition of LD was contingent upon the EOT.
7. Agreement Containing Arbitration Clause Not Signed By A Party; Parties Can Still Be Referred To Arbitration: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Buildmyinfra Private Limited versus Gyan Prakash Mishra
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 734
The Delhi High Court has ruled that even if the Agreement containing an Arbitration Clause has not been signed by a party to the dispute, the parties can still be referred to Arbitration.
The Single Bench of Justice Prateek Jalan held that it is not necessary for the written document to be signed by all the parties, as long as the existence of an arbitration agreement can be culled out from the exchange of letters or other means of communication between the parties.
The petitioner Buildmyinfra Private Limited issued an offer letter to the respondent Gyan Prakash Mishra to join its employment, which was accepted by the respondent. Thereafter, the respondent signed a 'Confidentiality and Non-Compete Agreement'.
8. 'Khadi' Trademark Infringement Suit: Delhi High Court Grants Permanent Injunction Against 'Khadi By Heritage', Awards ₹12 Lakhs Damages & Cost
Case Title: KHADI & VILLAGE INDUSTRIES COMMISSION v. RAMAN GUPTA AND OTHERS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 735
The Delhi High Court has granted permanent injunction against KHADI BY HERITAGE, engaged in selling of PPE kits, hand sanitizers and fireballs, in the trademark infringement suit filed by KHADI observing that there was a "reasonable expectation" that the latter misused the former's trademark to promote its products.
Justice Pratibha M Singh awarded damages to the tune of Rs.10 lakhs and costs of Rs.2 lakhs in favour of Khadi & Village Industries Commission and observed thus:
"Such misuse of the Plaintiff's mark 'KHADI' cannot be condoned by the Court, inasmuch as the mark and the name, as also, the logo, have been identically used by the Defendants. The use by the Defendants is deliberate, conscious and mala fide in nature."
9. Article 226 | Court Cannot Re-Appreciate Evidence Already Considered By Departmental Authorities: Delhi High Court
CASE TITLE: SH D.C. NARNOLIA v. CANARA BANK AND ORS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 736
The Delhi High Court has held that it cannot, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 or 227 of the Indian Constitution, in cases of departmental enquiries, re-appreciate evidence which has already been reasonably considered by the departmental authorities.
A bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh also noted that it was not up to the High Court to adjudge upon the proportionality of the punishment in such cases. It observed,
" It is not at all open to this Court to re-appreciate the evidence in exercise of its jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. Equally, it is not open to the High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction Under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, to go into the proportionality of punishment so long as the punishment does not shock the conscience of the court."
10. No Distinct Status For Rifle Association Members Under Arms Act; They Can't Possess More Than 2 Firearms : Delhi High Court
CASE TITLE: MEET MALHOTRA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 737
A single judge bench of the Delhi High Court held that a member of a Rifles' Association or Club cannot hold more than two firearms by claiming exemption under Section 3(2) of the Arms Act 1959. Justice Yashwant Varma stated that more than two firearms could only be held by a member on a temporary basis if holding of the additional weapon was licensed to the club or association that the said member was a part of.
Briefly, the facts of the case were that the petitioner had acquired a firearm license and was a life member of the National and State Rifles Associations. He acquired a point 22 bore target pistol in addition to the point 22 Rifle and point 32 revolver, already endorsed on his license.
11. Assault & Criminal Force: Delhi High Court Quashes Cross FIRs By Neighbours After Settlement, Asks Them To Install & Maintain Water Harvesting System
Case Title: FAUJI & ORS. v. THE STATE(GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) AND ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 738
The Delhi High Court has quashed two cross FIRs lodged by neighbours alleging assault and use of criminal force with intent to outrage the modesty of the ladies involved in the fight between them, after the parties arrived at a settlement.
As the parties undertook to implement a water harvesting scheme at city's Fatehpur Beri village, Justice Jasmeet Singh directed the parties to provide necessary financial resources and manpower to install and implement the water harvesting system as well as to maintain the same for at least a period of 10 years.
12. [Unauthorized E-Rickshaws] Carrying Out Surprise Checks To Prevent Plying Without Fitness Certificate: Delhi Govt Informs High Court
Case Title: Ajit Kumar v. GNCTD
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 739
The Delhi Government has informed the Delhi High Court that the registration of e-Rickshaws and procurement of Fitness Certificate as well as checking of violation of the said conditions is a regular ongoing process.
A division bench comprising of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad was also informed that regular checks are being conducted at various places in the city to ensure that each and every e-Rickshaw and e-Cart is plying only after obtaining the Fitness Certificate.
The Court was dealing with a public interest litigation stating that there are about 22,000 unauthorized autos and 52,280 unlicensed e-rickshaws presently plying on Delhi roads.
13. No Material Found On Search, Income Tax Additions Can't Be Made On Presumption: Delhi High Court
Case Title: PCIT Versus Mamta Agarwal
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 740
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Preetam Singh Arora held that if no incriminating material is found during the course of the search, then no addition can be made in the assessment under Sections 153A and 153C of the Income Tax Act.
The Investigation Wing of the Income Tax Department carried out a search and seizure operation against M/s K.R. Pulp & Papers Limited under Section 132(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 at various residential and business premises. The company was stated to be managed and controlled by Madho Gopal Agarwal, Raj Gopal Agarwal, and Gopal Agarwal. The statements of Gopal Agarwal were recorded, and the statements of Madho Gopal Agarwal were recorded during the post-search inquiry.
14. Separate Toilets For Transgender Persons Will Be Created On Fast Track Basis: Delhi Govt To High Court
Case Title: Jasmine Kaur Chhabra v. UOI & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 741
The Delhi Government has informed the High Court that it is making all possible efforts to ensure creation of separate toilets for the use of Transgender persons and that the same will be done on a fast track basis.
A division bench comprising of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad was further informed by the Delhi Government that as many as 505 toilets meant for Persons with Disabilities have been designated for the use of Transgender or Third Gender persons.
The status report filed on July 27 by Delhi Government's Department of Social Welfare further stated that a total of 9 new toilets for the use of Transgender persons had already been constructed and that further construction of 56 more toilets was underway.
15. Cross-Examination Cannot Encompass Questions Which Are Scandalous, Intend To Cause Humiliation To Witness: Delhi High Court
Case Title: KANWAL NAIN SINGH MOKHA v. REKHA KHURANA
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 742
The Delhi High Court has observed that the cross-examination cannot encompass questions that are scandalous or intended to cause humiliation to the witness.
Justice Asha Menon further observed that while there is a right to ask questions of a witness to impeach his creditworthiness, it cannot descend to harassment and humiliation of the witness.
The Court added thus:
"Thus, it is clear that both examination and cross-examination must relate to relevant facts. The reason why cross-examination is not confined to the facts to which the witnesses testified is obvious. The witness who is examined-in-chief is from the side of the party who has called him. Therefore, his testimony would be, in-chief relating to the case of that party. But since the opposite side is also required to prove their case, the right has been given to such adverse party to put questions that would be beyond the examination-in-chief."
16. Disciplinary Authority Of Parent Organization Can Issue Chargesheet Against Employee's Misconduct In Borrowing Department: Delhi High Court
Case Title: N.D. TYAGI v. POWER FINANCE CORPORATION LTD. & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 743
The Delhi High Court has observed that once the employee is sent back to his parent department, it is the competent disciplinary authority of the parent organisation which can issue a charge sheet against the misconduct even though it has taken place in the borrowing department.
A division bench comprising of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad dismissed an appeal against a single judge order which had refused to grant relief to a man, employed as an Executive Director in the Power Finance Corporation Limited, challenging a chargesheet wherein he was proposed to be proceeded against in disciplinary action in accordance with the provisions made in Rules 28 and 30 of the Power Finance Corporation Limited (Conduct Discipline and Appeal) Rules.
17. High Court Directs Delhi Govt To Fill Vacant Staff Posts In Indira Gandhi Super Speciality Hospital Within Six Months
Case Title: DWARKA COURT BAR ASSOCIATION v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 744
The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi Government to fill up within a period of six months the vacant posts at Indira Gandhi Super Speciality Hospital in city's Dwarka area, noting that the deficit staff deserved to be recruited as early as possible.
A division bench comprising of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad also directed Delhi Government's Secretary of Health and Family Welfare Department to carry out a periodic review after every 6 months for enhancing the number of beds and also the manpower in the said hospital.
"The hospital in question is catering to the needs of the people in and around Dwarka and there is no other Government Hospital," the Court noted.
18. Denial Of Speedy Trial Infringes Fundamental Right Under Article 21, May Be A Ground For Grant Of Bail: Delhi High Court
CASE TITLE: GURMITO v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 745
The Delhi High Court has held that speedy trial form an intrinsic part of Article 21 of the Constitution and the denial of same may be a ground for bail in certain circumstances.
The single judge bench comprising Justice Jasmeet Singh noted that denial of bail without any possibility of the trial concluding anytime soon would cause an infringement of the accused person's right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. Since the case was instituted under the NDPS Act, the court also recorded satisfaction regarding twin conditions for bail under Section 37 of the Act.
Briefly, the facts of the case are that an application was filed seeking release of an accused under the NDPS Act on regular bail till final disposal of the case registered by the CBI.
19. Persons Cannot Be Evicted With "Bulldozer" At Their Doorstep Without Any Notice, Rendering Them Completely Shelterless: Delhi High Court
Case Title: SHAKARPUR SLUM UNION v. DDA AND ORS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 746
Observing the action of Development Authority (DDA) in removing alleged encroachers 'overnight', the Delhi High Court has observed that persons cannot be evicted with a bulldozer at their doorstep "early in the morning or late in the evening" without any notice, rendering them completely shelterless.
Justice Subramonium Prasad further added that a reasonable period has to be given to such persons and temporary location has to be provided to them before embarking on any demolition activities.
"The DDA has to act in consultation with the DUSIB before embarking upon any such venture and persons cannot be evicted with a bulldozer at their door step early in the morning or late in the evening, without any notice, rendering them completely shelter-less. A reasonable period has to be given to such persons and temporary location has to be provided to them before embarking on any demolition activities," the Court observed.
20. S.41 CrPC | Arrest Should Not Be Made Merely Because It's Lawful, Police Officer Must Justify It Apart From His Power To Do So: Delhi High Court
Case Title: NEELAM CHAUHAN v. THE STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 747
The Delhi High Court has observed that no arrest should be made merely for the reason that that it is lawful, thereby adding that the police officer has to justify the arrest apart from his power to do so.
Referring to the Supreme Court judgment in Satendar Kumar v. CBI which has discussed compliances of sec. 41 and 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1943, Justice Anu Malhotra was of the view that the said provisions have to be adhered to by the Investigating Agency in the event the police officer considers it essential to arrest the accused persons.
"It is essential to observe that the said provisions come into play at the time of arrest of a person and the requirement of calling upon a person to appear before the police officer on his having credible information or where there is a reasonable suspicion of that person having committed a cognizable offence," the Court said.
21. "Unfortunate That PIL Being Used For Blackmailing Citizens": Delhi High Court Imposes ₹10 Lakhs Cost On NGO Alleging Illegal Construction
Case Title: NEW RISE FOUNDATION REGD. CHARITABLE TRUST v. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION DELHI AND ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 748
The Delhi High Court has imposed a cost of Rs. 10 lakhs on an NGO alleging illegal and unauthorised construction in city's Neb Sarai area, observing that it was unfortunate that PIL forum was being used for blackmailing citizens.
Observing that it was a blackmailing type of litigation, a division bench comprising of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad directed the NGO to deposit the cost to Army War Widows Fund within a period of 30 days.
The PIL was filed by New Rise Foundation Regd. Charitable Trust, claiming that it provides shelter to orphan children and food to the poor, alleging that an illegal structure was in existence admeasuring 600 sq. yards.
22. Arbitration Clause In The Annexure To The Agreement Would Be Binding On The Parties: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Piyush Kumar Dutt v. Vishal Mega Mart Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 749
The High Court of Delhi has held that an arbitration clause contained in the annexure to the main agreement would be binding on the parties to that agreement.
The Bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna held that in view of Section 11(6-A) the justiciability of claims and the defences can only be determined through adjudication by the arbitrator.
23. Arbitral Tribunal Has The Power To Vacate/Modify Its Earlier Order: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Airport Authority of India (Kolkata Airport) v. TDI International Ltd.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 750
The High Court of Delhi has held that the arbitral tribunal would be guided by the principles of O. 39 R. 1&2 of CPC while considering the issue of vacation/modification of an interim order.
The Bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula held that the tribunal does not have the power of substantive review of its order, however, it does have the power to vacate or modify the conditions of the interim order.
24. High Court Directs Delhi Govt To Ensure Strict Compliance Of Senior Citizens Act, Closes Suo Moto Proceedings
Case Title: Court on its own motion v. GNCTD
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 751
The Delhi High Court on Thursday directed the Delhi Government to ensure strict compliance of Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.
A division bench comprising of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad also directed the Delhi State Legal Services Authority (DSLSA) to ensure that legal aid is extended to persons covered under the Act with promptitude, in order to avoid any inconvenience to them.
The Court closed the suo moto proceedings in the nature of public interest litigation which were initiated on its own motion based on a May 23 letter of Advocate Neha Rai, who highlighted the current state of affairs regarding implementing the said Act.
25. Remedy Under RERA Act Is Not A Bar For Initiation Of Arbitration: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Priyanka Taksh Sood & Ors. versus Sunworld Residency Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 752
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the dispute involving refund of payment under the 'Flat Buyer Agreement' from a real estate developer is arbitrable and is not barred by the existence of a concurrent remedy under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA Act).
The Single Bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula held that the remedies available under the RERA Act are in addition to, and not in supersession of, the remedies available under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), and that the application of concurrent remedies under the A&C Act is not barred under the RERA Act.
Applying the 'Doctrine of Election', the Court ruled that since the party had not initiated any proceedings under the RERA Act, therefore, it was not barred from electing to avail the remedy of arbitration.
26. Delhi HC Directs Speedy Disposal Of Cases For COVID Protocol Violations; Disapproves Police Issuing 41A Notices In Such Cases
Case Title: DECATHLON SPORTS INDIA PVT. LTD. v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 753
The Delhi High Court on Thursday observed that it would be appropriate for the Delhi police to take quick action in all the pending matters relating to violation of orders passed under the Disaster Management Act, 2005 by filing complaints as required under law before the appropriate court, adding that such courts ought to dispose of the matters without further delay.
Justice Asha Menon added:
"The offence has been made cognizable only in order to facilitate the police to take immediate action, including the arrest of a person, who is found disobeying the orders issued for maintenance of law and order and in the interest of public health. That purpose cannot be converted into one that subjects the offender to unnecessary harassment and entails violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, guaranteeing the right to life, of which liberty is an inalienable facet."
27. Mere Fact That Liberty Of Bail Was Not Misused During Trial Does Not Per Se Warrant Suspension Of Sentence U/S 389 CrPC: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Anil v. State
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 754
"The mere fact that during trial liberty of bail was not misused may not per se warrant suspension of sentence and grant of bail," the Delhi High Court has observed.
Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta added that even though a detailed examination of the merits of the case may not be required for suspension of sentence, however, the exercise of jurisdiction is to be made in judicious manner and for the reasons to be recorded in writing.
"The difference between grant of bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. during trial as well as (suspension of sentence) Section 389 Cr.P.C. after conviction is well distinguished and presumption of innocence which is provided at the time of trial does not continue after the conviction of accused," the Court said.
28. Show Cause Notice And Reassessment Order Based On Distinct And Separate Grounds, No Details Of Bogus Purchases Were Given: Delhi High Court Quashes The Order.
Case Title: M/s Best Buildwell Private Limited Versus ITO
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 755
The Delhi High Court has held that the show cause notice as well as the reassessment order under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act were based on distinct and separate grounds. The department failed to provide the details of the transaction and the vendors from whom the bogus purchases were made.
The division bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora has observed that "the show cause notice primarily states that "it is seen that the petitioner has made purchases from certain non-filers." However, no details or any information about these entities were provided to the petitioner. It is not understood as to how the petitioner was to know which of the entities it dealt with were filers or non-filers!"
29. E-Commerce Platforms Can't Permit Third-Party Sellers To "Latch On" Bestseller's Trademark: Delhi HC Grants Interim Injunction Against Flipkart
Case Title: AKASH AGGARWAL v. FLIPKART INTERNET PRIVATE LIMITED AND ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 756
In the context of e-commerce platforms, the Delhi High Court has held that permitting a third-party seller to 'latch on' to a Best-Seller's name or trademark is nothing but 'riding piggyback', which also constitutes passing off.
Justice Pratibha M Singh further said:
"It amounts to taking unfair advantage of the goodwill that resides in the Plaintiff's mark and business. In the context of e-commerce, this Court has no doubt that 'latching on' by unauthorised sellers results in and constitutes 'passing off' as known in the brick and mortar world. It is a mode of encashing upon the reputation of the Plaintiff which he has painstakingly built."
30. Courts Must Be Sensitive To Plight Of Woman Lodging Complaint Against Her Own Husband For Sexual Assault Of Their Daughter: Delhi High Court
Case Title: V v. State
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 757
The Delhi High Court on Friday observed that the Courts have to be sensitive to the situation where allegations have been lodged by mother of a minor victim against her own husband of having sexual contact with the daughter, that too in her presence in the house.
Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta made the observation while denying anticipatory bail to a husband, whose wife had alleged that he had sexually assaulted her five year old daughter.
The FIR was registered against the petitioner under sec. 377 of Indian Penal Code as well as sec. 6 of POCSO Act. Later, sec. 376AB (punishment for rape of minor under 12 years of age) of the Code was also invoked against him.
31. "Court Has To Become Voice Of Voiceless": Delhi HC Takes Suo Motu Cognizance To Facilitate School Admission Of Child Whose Parents Are In Custody
Case Title: KAMINI ARYA THROUGH PEROKAR v. THE STATE NCT OF DELHI
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 758
The Delhi High Court has taken suo motu cognizance to facilitate admission of an 8 year old child to school which could not be facilitated for the reason that her parents were in judicial custody in a murder case since July 2021.
Observing that the Court has to become the "voice of the voiceless", Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma added thus:
"This court is of the opinion that the child must get admitted in a school at the earliest so that shadow of no unpleasant happening falls upon the child's life to darken her future."
The Court noted that the child, being an individual Indian citizen, enjoyed the Fundamental Rights including the right to Education and that the welfare of child should not only be considered in cases dealing with family disputes but also like the present one.
32. Recovery Of Demand Against Issues Decided In Favour Of Assessee Is Unwarranted: Delhi High Court
Case Title: M/s Expeditors International Of Washingtion, Inc. Versus ACIT
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 759
The Delhi High Court has held that the recovery of demand against issues decided in favour of the assessee is unwarranted.
The division bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Singh Arora has found that the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) has itself issued an Instruction dated February 2, 1993, giving guidelines for Stay of Demand. One of the guidelines for the grant of complete stay was "if the demand in dispute relates to issues that have been decided in assessee's favour by an appellate authority or court earlier...."
33. Voice Sample Of Accused Can Be Obtained After Filing Of Charge Sheet With Court's Permission: Delhi High Court
Case Title: SUNIL KUMAR ALIAS TITU v. STATE OF UT OF CHANDIGARH
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 760
The Delhi High Court has observed that framing of charges cannot defeat the right of the prosecution to obtain an expert opinion on voice samples that it had been permitted to take by Court.
Justice Asha Menon added that the purpose of taking a voice sample is to investigate a crime, but it would be incorrect to interpret the same as meaning that the voice sample would have to be taken only within the time the chargesheet is filed and not thereafter.
The Court made the observations while dealing with a plea filed by an accused in a case relating to the leaking of the question paper set for Haryana Civil Services (Judicial) (Preliminary) Examination 2017. The trial was later transferred to Delhi.
34. Enjoyment Of Liberty By Persons Overreaching Law Not Comprehended In Constitution, Legal Consequences Bound To Follow: Delhi High Court
Case Title: SANTOSH KUMAR JHA v. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH THE STANDING COUNSEL
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 761
"Any attempt to create an impression that one can over reach the law and still he can enjoy the liberty would not be comprehended in the constitutional scheme," the Delhi High Court has observed while denying anticipatory bail to a man in a rioting case.
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav added that when an individual behaves in disharmonious manner, society disapproves and the legal consequences are bound to follow.
The development came in an FIR registered under sec. 145, 147, 148, 149, 186, 353, 308 and 505 of Indian Penal Code and sec. 3 and 4 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984.
35. Theobroma & Theos Settle Trademark Dispute Before Delhi High Court
Case Title: THEOS FOOD PVT. LTD. & ORS. v. THEOBROMA FOODS PVT. LTD.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 762
Competing entities Theos and Theobroma have agreed before the Delhi High Court to settle their trademark infringement suit in respect of bakery related products and confectionery.
Justice Pratibha M Singh noted the said settlement conditions while dealing with a suit filed by Theos Food Private Limited against Theobroma Foods Private Limited seeking to restrain the latter from infringing the trademark 'THEOS', 'THEO'S' and 'THEO'S PATISSERIE & CHOCOLATARIE'.
It was the case of Theos to restrict Theobroma that was using the mark 'THEOS' as a prefix to the names of various food items being sold in its outlets.
With respect to the use of the mark or name 'THEOS'/'THEO'S' by THEOBROMA on social media, physical, online menu cards and signages of Theobroma, the parties agreed before the court that Theobroma shall restrict such use of the mark 'THEOS'/'THEO'S' only for the following five food items offered by it, along with variants of the same.
36. Account Statements And IT Returns Relied On By Arbitral Tribunal, Have Evidentiary Value : Delhi High Court
Case Title: M/s Scholastic India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. versus Kanta Batra
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 763
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the arbitral award cannot be set aside on the ground that the material relied upon by the Arbitral Tribunal does not measure up to the standards under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
The Bench, consisting of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Amit Mahajan, held that an award passed by the Arbitral Tribunal, by relying upon the Bank Account statements and the Income Tax Return furnished by the Claimant, cannot be said to be an unreasoned award or an award based on no evidence.
37. Definition Of Relative Under Senior Citizens Act Can't Be Treated At Par With Income Tax Act, 1961: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Miss Indira Uppal Versus UOI
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 764
The Delhi High Court has held that the petitioner's real intent was to ensure that gift tax is not levied on donee. The petition does not promote the maintenance and welfare of senior citizens.
The division bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Preetam Singh Arora has observed that as per the object of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 and the Income Tax Act, 1961, the expression "relative" is not used in a similar context. The term "relative" being wholly context-specific, there is no reason to assume that the criteria used in defining it in one context will provide even a useful starting point in another context.
38. Sex Worker Entitled To All Rights Available To Citizens But Cannot Claim Special Treatment If She Violates Law: Delhi High Court
Case Title: SARIKA@RADHA@LOVANYA T v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 765
The Delhi High Court has observed that although a sex worker is entitled to all the rights which are available to a citizen, she cannot claim special treatment if she violates the law.
"No doubt, a sex worker is entitled to all rights available to a citizen, but at the same time, if she violates the law, she would be subjected to the same consequences under law and cannot claim any special treatment."
The Court made the observation while denying interim bail to a woman, a sex worker, who had allegedly forced a minor girl into prostitution and did not allow her to leave the brothel house. As per the prosecution's case, the petitioner was found in a brothel house from where 13 minor girls were rescued.
39. Unqualified Person Appointed On Ad-Hoc Basis Cannot Claim Right To Continue In Employment As A Matter Of Right: Delhi High Court
CASE TITLE: DINESH KUMAR v. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 766
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that a person appointed as a daily wager or on ad-hoc basis, who did not meet the qualification criteria and necessary certification, cannot as a matter of right claim to continue in such employment.
The single judge bench comprising Justice Chandra Dhari Singh observed,
"Upon having perused the records of the case and having analysed the facts of the case at hand, it emerged that the petitioner did not meet the qualification criteria and necessary certification. Despite the opportunities granted, he failed to undergo the requisite professional or skill-based training and failed to furnish the certificate for the same. As such, an employee on daily wages or appointed on an ad-hoc basis, as a matter of right, cannot claim to be employed for a position to which one is ineligible."
40. High Court Must Respect Exercise Of Discretionary Powers By District Judiciary, Cannot Play Role Of 'Headmaster': Delhi HC
Case Title: GHULAM SARWAR v. SMT. NILOFAR KHAN & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 767
"The High Court is required, at all times, to respect the exercise of discretionary powers by the district judiciary and not to act in a manner as could convey an impression that the court is playing the role of headmaster," the Delhi High Court has observed.
Justice C Hari Shankar further added that if the High Court starts interfering with the orders passed by district judiciary in exercise of Article 227 of the Constitution of India, it is "bound to shake the confidence of the district judiciary" and "seriously impede the dispassionate exercise of discretion vested in them."
"In my considered opinion, it is only as a matter of chance hierarchal circumstance that this Court is "above" the district judiciary. Else, the district judiciary, and the learned Courts of which it is comprised, exercise jurisdiction which, subjectively, is co-equal to the jurisdiction exercised by this Court," the Court said.
41. Income Tax Dept. Can't Withhold Refunds In Mechanical And Routine Manner: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Trueblue India LLP Vs Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 768
The Delhi High Court has held that an order under Section 241A of the Income Tax Act cannot be passed in a mechanical and routine manner. The refunds cannot be withheld just because the notice under Section 143(2) has been issued and the department wants to verify the claim for deduction under Section 10AA of the Income Tax Act.
The division bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora has observed that the order under Section 241A was generic and no attempt was made by the department to substantiate how the grant of the refund is likely to adversely affect the revenue.
42. Amendment To Section 36(1)(va) Of Income Tax Act Is Prospective In Nature: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -7 versus TV Today Network Ltd.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 769
The Delhi High Court has allowed the assessee- TV Today Network Ltd.'s claims for deduction of expenses in nature of 'consumption incentive' offered to the advertisers for booking more advertisement space.
The Bench, consisting of Justices Manmohan and Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, reiterated that the 'due date', in case of delay by the assessee in depositing the employees' contribution to Provident Fund under Section 36(1) (va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is to be reckoned as the date for filing the return under Section 139 (1) and not the due date as prescribed under the relevant Labour statute. The Court added that the amendment to Section 36(1)(va), vide the Finance Act, 2021, is 'for removal of doubts' and hence, it cannot be presumed to be retrospective since it alters the law as it earlier stood.
43. High Court Directs Delhi Govt To Ensure Strict Compliance Of Orders Banning Sale Of 'Chinese Manjha' For Kite Flying
Case Title: Sanser Pal Singh v. UOI & Ors
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 770
The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi Government to ensure strict compliance of the orders passed by it as well as the National Green Tribunal (NGT) banning sale of Chinese synthetic manjha used in flying kites.
A division bench comprising of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad disposed of a PIL filed by Advocate Sanser Pal Singh seeking a complete ban on flying of kites as well as manufacturing, sale and storage of objects used in the same.
While the Court was of the view that a complete ban on flying of kites cannot be granted as kite flying is a "part of our culture and heritage", it said that the use of Chinese Maanjha or synthetic thread was "certainly causing grave concern."
44. Object Of Default Bail Inherently Linked With Article 21, Safeguards Accused's Life & Personal Liberty Against Arbitrary Detention: Delhi High Court
Title: SULEMAN v. THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 771
The Delhi High Court has observed that the object of default bail is inherently linked to Article 21 of the Constitution of India, laying emphasis on safeguarding the life and personal liberty of the accused against arbitrary detention.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma made the observation while dismissing a revision petition filed by an accused in relation to a case registered under Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, challenging the order of Trial Court wherein his plea for Default Bail was dismissed.
The Petitioner was in custody in the FIR registered under sec. 21 and 29 of the NDPS Act. On completion of the investigation, chargesheet was filed on March 3, 2021 without the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report.
45. Delhi HC Directs Engineer Supervising Construction Work To Contribute Educational Expenses Of Child Injured In On-Site Accident, Allows Compromise
Case Title: MAN SINGH v. THE STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 772
The Delhi High Court recently directed a site engineer, supervising an ongoing construction work, to contribute towards educational expenses of a child who was injured after a board present at the site fell on him.
The direction will remain in effect till the child clears 10th standard. The minor child is presently in 3rd standard.
The FIR was registered under sec. 283 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code by father of the minor child alleging negligence on the part of the Petitioner-engineer, who was employed with a private construction company.
The engineer therefore approached the High Court seeking quashing of the FIR on the ground that the dispute was amicably settled between the parties.
46. Jhuggi Clusters Not Notified By DUSIB Can't Seek Benefit Of 2015 Rehabilitation & Relocation Policy: Delhi High Court
CASE TITLE: URMILA & ORS. v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 773
The Delhi High Court has held that notification by DUSIB (Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board) is an essential pre-requisite to be qualified/ recognized as a "jhuggi jhopri basti" for the purpose of its Rehabilitation and Relocation Policy of 2015.
A single bench of Justice Sachin Datta observed,
" A perusal of the 2015 Policy also makes it clear that only jhuggi jhopri bastis that have come up before 01.01.2006 are eligible for rehabilitation/re-location in terms of the said Policy. More importantly, by definition in the statute itself, notification by DUSIB is an essential pre-requisite to be qualified/ recognized as a jhuggi jhopri basti for the purpose of the Act and the 2015 Policy. "
In absence of such a notification, the Court vacated its interim order restraining the Delhi Development Authority from bulldozing jhuggi clusters in city's Gyaspur area in Hazrat Nizamuddin.
47. Procedural Formalities In CPC Intended To Facilitate Litigation, Not To Be Abused As Instrument Of Oppression To Frustrate Proceedings: Delhi HC
Case Title: EXTREME COATING PRIVATE LTD v. JOTUN INDIA PRIVATE LTD.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 774
The Delhi High Court has observed that the procedural formalities in the Code of Civil Procedure are "intended to facilitate litigation" by prescribing the course to be adopted and not to be "abused as an instrument of oppression" to frustrate validly instituted proceedings.
Justice C Hari Shankar was dealing with a plea challenging the orders dated 16th August 2021 and 2nd February 2022, passed by the District Judge (Commercial Courts) in a civil suit which was preferred by the respondent against the petitioner.
The suit was filed as a commercial suit under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
The petitioner, as the defendant in the suit, moved an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, seeking rejection of the suit on the ground that it had been filed in violation of sec. 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, which required the plaintiff to resort to pre-institution mediation before approaching the Court.
48. Climate Change | Sincere Efforts Made By Centre For Providing Better Environment: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Rohit Madan v Union of India and Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 775
This Delhi High Court has appreciated the efforts made by the Ministry of Environment, Forest, and Climate Change as well as other Ministries for ensuring implementation of the steps in respect of climate change and for "providing a better environment for the generations to come."
The development comes in a PIL filed by one Rohit Madan, seeking constitution of an Expert Committee to propose suggestions for taking all measures, including any legislative amendment, for following up on the promises made by the Union of India before UNFCCC.
"This Court really appreciates the sincere efforts made on the part of the Ministry of Environment, Forest, and Climate Change, Government of India as well as other Ministries for ensuring implementation of the steps in respect of climate change and for providing a better environment for the generations to come ," the Court said.
49. Sum Directed To Be Refunded To Assessee Is A debt In The Hands Of Dept.: Delhi High Court Allows Interest On Refund U/S 244A
Case Title: PCIT Versus Punjab & Sind Bank
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 776
The Delhi High Court held that the Punjab & Sind Bank is entitled to a refund of money deposited by it upon re-computation by the department and interest is liable to be paid under Section 244A(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act.
The division bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora has observed that a sum has been found refundable to the assessee as a consequence of a reduction in the taxable income. The sum directed to be refunded to the assessee is a debt in the hands of the department, and for the department to term "payment of this debt" as "interest" is fallacious. In fact, it is on the payment of this debt that the assessee is demanding that the department be liable to pay interest for the period that the department retained the money.
50. Jurisdiction Of Competition Commission Not Excluded Merely Because Actionable Info Relates To A Patent: Delhi High Court
CASE TITLE: VIFOR INTERNATIONAL LTD. v. COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 777
The Delhi High Court has held that the jurisdiction of Competition Commission of India is not ousted merely because the information on which it seeks to initiate an enquiry relates to a patent.
A single bench of Justice Yashwant Varma held that so long as the CCI is duly and statutorily empowered to deal with all information which it may receive with respect to actions that may (i) impede competition, (ii) usher in an anti-competitive environment, (iii) relate to abuse of dominant position or (iv) the adoption of unfair trade practices.
51. Supersession Of The Arbitration Clause Must Not Be Inferred Lightly: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Shristi Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. versus Ircon International Limited
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 778
The Delhi High Court has ruled that in view of the principle of 'when in doubt, do refer', as enunciated by the Supreme Court, if there is an arbitration agreement between the parties, which is sought to be negated by a party by citing other provisions of a contract, which requires interpretation of the contract, the Court must lean towards referring the matter to arbitration.
The Single Bench of Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani held that an arbitration agreement embedded in a contract is always considered a separate and severable clause, and that the supersession of the arbitration clause must not be inferred lightly.
The petitioner Shristi Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. entered into an agreement with the respondent Ircon International Limited. After certain disputes arose between the parties, the petitioner invoked the arbitration clause contained in the General Conditions of Contract and filed a petition before the Delhi High Court under Section 11 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) seeking appointment of an arbitrator.
52. 'Projects Of National Importance': Delhi HC Upholds DRDO Decision To Bar Entities With Pending Criminal Cases From Defence Contracts
Case Title : TRIDENT INFOSOL PVT LTD v UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 779
Upholding Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO)'s policy decision to keep away entities with pending criminal investigations from participating in its tender processes, the Delhi High Court has said that the condition, requiring the bidders to submit an undertaking that there is no ongoing enquiry against them, is imperative to maintain the integrity of projects which deal with matters of national importance, security and that are of immense public importance.
The division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad in the ruling dated August 1 said that the tenders are for procurement of instruments which are necessary for the security of the country and even generally the scope of judicial review under the tender jurisdiction is limited.
53. Judges Cannot Be Experts In All Fields, Experts' Opinion Cannot Be Supplanted By A Court Overstepping Its Jurisdiction: Delhi High Court
Title: NATIONAL BOARD OF EXAMINATION v. ASSOCIATION OF MD PHYSICIANS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 780
"Judges are not and cannot be experts in all fields, and the opinion of experts cannot be supplanted by a Court overstepping its jurisdiction," the Delhi High Court has observed.
A division bench comprising of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad added that in examination matters, a candidate has to demonstrate that the key answers are "patently wrong on the face of it", adding that if there is any exercise conducted by the Court wherein the pros and cons of the arguments given by both sides need to be taken into consideration, then that will "inevitably amount to unwarranted interference on the part of the Court."
54. Person Exercising Legal Right In Court Has Correspondent Duty Not To Act In Manner Which May Lead To Violation Of Others' Rights: Delhi High Court
Title: RAKESH v. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT DELHI)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 781
The Delhi High Court has observed that a person exercising a legal right in the court of law has a corresponding obligation and duty from acting in a manner which may lead to violation of the rights of other individuals.
"Vindicating of any personal grievance by violent means has to be rejected at the threshold," Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta added.
The Court was dealing with a man seeking bail in an FIR registered under 186, 353, 427 and 506 of Indian Penal Code and sec. 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984.
It was the prosecution's case that in July last year, a PCR call was made regarding damage inside Karkardooma Court. The complainant, Reader of the Court, gave a statement that he inquired about the status of his case which was pending in the Court. As the reader informed petitioner about the date fixed, the petitioner became furious and started vandalizing the furniture present in the court room.
55. "Legal Regime Apropos Sports Administration Has To Be Implemented Fully": Delhi High Court Places Indian Olympic Association Under CoA
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 782
Observing that the legal regime apropos sports administration in India has to be implemented fully and effectively, the Delhi High Court has put the affairs of Indian Olympic Association (IOA) in the hands of a Committee of Administrators (CoA) as per a recent Supreme Court order.
A division bench comprising of Justice Najmi Waziri and Justice Manmohan concluded that if a sports federation does not comply with the law of the land, it will receive no recognition from the Government, thereby adding that the benefits and facilities to it will stop promptly.
56. "Safe Harbour" Protection Available To Intermediaries Qua Criminal Prosecution Unless 'Active Role' Is Disclosed In Commission Of Offence: Delhi HC
Case Title: FLIPKART INTERNET PRIVATE LTD. v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 783
The Delhi High Court has observed that unless an active role is disclosed in the commission of the offences as complained of, an intermediary would be entitled to claim protection under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
The provision exempts liability of intermediary in certain cases. It states that an intermediary shall not be liable for any third party information, data, or communication link made available or hosted by it.
However, the provision will not apply if the intermediary has conspired or abetted or aided or induced, whether by threats or promise or otherwise in the commission of the unlawful act.
57. Delhi High Court Modifies POCSO Conviction To Less Grave Offence, Orders Release As Convict's Imprisonment Exceeds Maximum Punishment
Case Title: MOHD AZIZUL v. STATE
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 784
The Delhi High Court has held that a man accused of sexually abusing a minor cannot be punished under Section 6 of the POCSO Act for the offence of 'aggravated penetrative sexual assault' when the alleged act falls short of 'penetration'.
The bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh held that without penetration, such act is only an attempt to rape or aggravated sexual assault as per Section 9(m) of the POCSO Act, which is punishable under Section 10 of the Act with 5-7 years imprisonment and fine.
The Court was dealing with an appeal against conviction for aggravated penetrative sexual assault on a three year old minor girl by one Mohd. Azizul. He was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 14 years.
The bench noted that while there was sexual assault committed on the minor and the intent to commit rape was proved before the trial court, the statements of victim's mother and the MLC raised a doubt regarding penetration.
58. "Complete Reluctance On Police's Part": Delhi High Court Orders FIR Against BJP Leader Syed Shahnawaz Hussain In Rape Case
Case Title: SYED SHAHNAWAZ HUSSAIN v. THE STATE & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 785
The Delhi High Court has ordered registration of FIR against BJP leader Syed Shahnawaz Hussain in an alleged 2018 rape case observing that there was a complete reluctance on the part of city police to register the same.
Justice Asha Menon directed that the investigation in the matter be completed and a detailed report under Section 173 CrPC be submitted before the MM within a period of three months.
The Court dismissed the petition filed by the former Union Minister challenging the order of the Special Judge dated July 12, 2018 which had dismissed his revision petition against the orders of the Metropolitan Magistrate directing registration of FIR.
Update: BJP Leader Syed Shahnawaz Hussain Moves Supreme Court Against Delhi HC Order For Registration Of FIR Against Him In 2018 Rape Case
59. Confessional Statement Of Co-Accused; Delhi High Court Quashes Charges Against Chartered Account For Being Speculative
Case Title: Vinod Kumar Kila v. CBI
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 786
The Delhi High Court has quashed the charges framed against a Chartered Account for aiding his client in money laundering purely on the basis of confessional statements made by a co-accused under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.).
The Single Bench of Justice Asha Menon ruled that retracted statements made by a co-accused under Section 164 Cr.P.C. are inadequate to establish the participation in a conspiracy to facilitate commission of the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The petitioner Vinod Kumar Kila filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court against the charges framed by the Special Judge, CBI under Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) read with Sections 13(2) and 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988.
60. Jahangirpuri Violence: Delhi High Court Refuses Anticipatory Bail, Says Accused Allegedly Tried To Create A "Rift Between Two Communities"
Case Title: SHEIKH ISHRAFIL v. STATE (NCT) OF DELHI
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 787
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday denied anticipatory bail to an accused in connection with the Jahangirpuri riots observing that his conduct was allegedly an "attempt to disturb the communal harmony of the area" by trying to create a "rift between two communities."
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma also noted that suspicious material was found on the terrace of his house during the riots and he had been non-cooperative during investigation. It observed:
"Ensuring peace and harmony in the country and communities is the most sacred duty of not only the law enforcing agencies and the Courts but duty has been caste on every citizen of this country that they should maintain peace and harmony and ensure that their acts do not instigate and promote communal hatred or ill-will."
The Court further noted that the accused was named by one of the eye witness as one of the perpetrator.
61. Maintenance Petition U/S 125 CrPC Covered By Res Judicata; Party Claiming Change In Circumstance Can't File Fresh Plea But Move U/S 127 CrPC: Delhi HC
Case Title: SUNITA & ANR. v. VIJAY PAL @ MOHD. SABIR & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 788
The Delhi High Court has observed that whenever a party claims a change in circumstance after an order granting maintenance has been passed under Section 125 CrPC, the appropriate recourse would be seeking relief under Section 127 of the Code, not filing a fresh petition under Section 125 of the Code.
Laying emphasis on the doctrine of res judicata, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed that the said principle has been evolved to prevent multiplicity of litigation regarding the same issues and puts an end to a finally adjudicated issue ensuring finality in litigation.
"This Court notes that a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. will be covered by the principle of res judicata due to its universal applicability, as proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. are Quasi- Criminal in nature. Once the petition has been adjudicated under Section 125 Cr.P.C. favourably by a Court of competent jurisdiction on merits, a subsequent petition cannot be preferred which arises from the same dispute having similar situations, circumstances and grounds as the previously adjudicated issues in the earlier petition filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C."
62. State & Judiciary Burdened For 19 Yrs: Delhi High Court Quashes 2003 Cheating FIR Based On Compromise, Imposes ₹1 Lakh Cost On Accused
Case Title: JOGINDER SINGH RAINA v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 789
Quashing a 2003 cheating FIR after settlement between parties, the Delhi High Court has imposed a cost of Rs. 1 lakh on a 77 year old accused, directing that the same be deposited in PM Cares Fund for welfare of children (PM CARES for Children Scheme).
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma quashed an FIR registered under sec. 328, 420, 467, 468, 471, 323, 506 and 120B of Indian Penal Code on the accused's plea, who was facing trial in the case for last 19 years.
While a co accused had died, the Court was informed that the matter was amicably settled between the petitioner and the 60 year old complainant after 19 years. The complainant informed the Court that she had received Rs. 32 lakhs as full and final settlement amount and had no objection if the FIR was quashed.
63. Every Pregnant Woman Deserves Dignity, Giving Birth In Custody Traumatic For Both Mother & Child: Delhi High Court
Case Title: KAJAL v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 790
Observing that every pregnant female deserves dignity during motherhood, the Delhi High Court has granted three months interim bail to a pregnant undertrial prisoner who was expecting her delivery in jail.
Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta also added that pregnancy of a woman is a special circumstance which needs to be appreciated as giving birth to a child while in custody, would not only be a trauma to the mother but also create an everlasting adverse impact on the child, whenever questioned about his birth.
"Every pregnant female deserves the dignity enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India during motherhood. The Court is expected to take note of interest of a child, who is not expected to be exposed to the prisons, until and unless there is a grave danger in releasing the petitioner on bail," the Court said.
64. Satyendar Jain Cannot Be Declared Person With Unsound Mind Or Disqualified From Delhi Legislative Assembly Under Writ Jurisdiction: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Ashish Kumar Srivastava v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 791
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation seeking to declare AAP leader Satyendar Jain as a person of 'unsound mind' thereby seeking his disqualification from the Delhi Legislative Assembly.
Jain is presently in judicial custody in a money laundering case being probed by the Enforcement Directorate.
A division bench comprising of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad was of the view that in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226, the Court cannot declare Jain as a person with unsound mind and cannot disqualify him from being a member of the Legislative Assembly or the Minister in the Government of NCT of Delhi.
65. Royal Stag v. Royal Champ: Delhi HC Decrees Alcohol Brand Seagram's Trademark Infringement Suit, Awards ₹20 Lakhs Damages
Case Title: AUSTIN NICHOLS & CO INC & ANR v. GWALIOR DISTILLERIES PRIVATE LTD
Ruling in favour of Seagram's alcohol brand, the Delhi High Court has awarded Rs. 20 lakhs damages and cost in its favour in a suit alleging trademark infringement in respect of Royal Stag whiskey by a company manufacturing Royal Champ whiskey.
Justice Navin Chawla permanently restrained Gwalior Distilleries Private Limited, engaged in sale of Royal Champ whiskey observing that the impugned label was a "colourable and slavish imitation" of ROYAL STAG label.
66. [Muslim Law] Minor Girl Can Marry Without Parents' Consent On Attaining Puberty, Has Right To Live With Husband Even When Below 18 Yrs: Delhi HC
Case Title: FIJA & ANR. v. State
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 793
The Delhi High Court has observed that as per Mohammedan Law, a minor girl who had attained the age of puberty can marry without consent of her parents and has a right to reside with her husband even when she is less than 18 years of age.
Justice Jasmeet Singh made the observation while granting protection to a muslim couple who got married in March this year as per Muslim rites and rituals. The plea was moved by the couple seeking directions to ensure that nobody separates them.
The parents of the girl opposed the marriage and registered an FIR under sec. 363 of IPC against the husband. Subsequently sec. 376 and sec. 6 POCSO were added.
67. Terror Funding Case: Delhi High Court Dismisses Zahoor Watali's Appeal Against Denial Of Bail On Ground Of Covid-19
Case Title: ZAHOOR AHMAD SHAH WATALI v. NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 794
The Delhi High Court has dismissed the appeal filed by Kashmiri businessman Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali challenging the Trial Court order denying him bail last year on the ground of COVID-19, in connection with a terror funding case.
Watali had challenged the order passed by Trial Court dated 15th May 2021 wherein it was concluded that there was no question of granting bail to him only on the ground of spread of COVID-19 pandemic. The Trial Court also took note of his medical condition as he was suffering from various ailments including diabetes, hyperthyroidism, piles etc.
Thereafter, on January 31, 2022, the Trial Court had, till further orders, directed Watali to be kept under house arrest at his Gurugram residence for his medical treatment.
68. Article 227 Not Mercy Jurisdiction, Litigants Casually Prosecuting Proceedings Before Lower Courts Can't Expect Sanctuary From High Court: Delhi HC
Case Title: KAILASH SEWANI v. MANISH KUMAR CHAUDHARY
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 795
Litigants cannot be casual about prosecuting the proceedings before the Court below and expect sanctuary from the High Court under Article 227, the Delhi High Court has observed.
Justice C Hari Shankar added that the jurisdiction vested in High Court by Article 227 is not expected to be used as an avenue for a party "to tide over the negligence exhibited by it before the Court below."
"Nor is Article 227 in the nature of mercy jurisdiction," the Court added.
The Court made the observation in a plea filed challenging an order dated 11th July 2022 passed in a civil suit wherein the petitioner was the defendant in. By the impugned order, the Civil Judge had rejected the petitioner's request to have the written statement taken on record.
69. Application Under Companies Act Against Order Rejecting Waiver Of Interest; Dispute Falls Within Scope Of VSV Act: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Kapri International Pvt. Ltd. versus Commissioner of Income Tax
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 796
The Delhi High Court has ruled that where an application under the Companies Act has been filed by a company in liquidation against the order of the revenue authorities rejecting the application for waiver of interest for delay in payment of tax dues, the said dispute would fall within the scope of Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 (VSV Act).
The Bench consisting of Justices Mukta Gupta and Anish Dayal ruled that the VSV Act is not a taxing statute but one which provides a dispute resolution scheme for tax disputes and hence, it would be amenable to a purposive construction. The Court held that it was the intent of the legislature to include all sorts of disputes under the VSV Act, even if they were pending before the Commissioner of Income Tax or the courts.
70. Article 19(1)(g) | Citizens' Right To Establish Educational Institution Can Be Restricted Only By Legislative Enactment, Not Mere Circulars: Delhi HC
Case Title: MEHTA TEACHER TRAINING COLLEGE v. NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION & ANR. and other connected petitions
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 797
The Delhi High Court today accepted an argument that a citizen cannot be deprived of the right to establish and administer an educational institution, unless the legislature in its wisdom decides to impose a reasonable restriction in general public interest on exercise of this fundamental right.
Justice Rekha Palli observed that any restriction on the exercise of the right under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India can only be by law and anything short of law would fall foul of the power under Article 19(6).
The Court thus agreed with the contention that the requirement under clause Article 19(6) can be met only by introduction of a statutory provision either in the Act or in the Regulation and not merely by the issuance of a circular or a policy decision taken by an authority, howsoever high.
71. Order Passed Under Section 143(1) Is Not An Assessment; Delhi High Court Dismisses Ernst And Young's Writ Petition
Case Title: Ernst and Young U.S. LLP versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 798
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the order passed under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is not an assessment for the purposes of Section 147 and hence, it is not necessary for the Assessing Officer to come across some fresh tangible material to form a belief that the income of the assessee has escaped assessment in order to reopen assessment.
The Bench of Justices Manmohan and Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora held that no opinion is formed by way of the order passed under Section 143(1), and that only an intimation is issued to the assessee when the return initially filed by it is processed; thus, the doctrine of change of opinion is not attracted.
72. WhatsApp's New Privacy Policy Shares Sensitive Data With Facebook, Forces Users Into Agreement By Providing Mirage Of Choice: Delhi HC
Case Title: Whatsapp LLC v. CCI, Facebook v. CCI
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 799
"The 2021 Policy places its users in a "take-it-or-leave-it" situation, virtually forcing its users into agreement by providing a mirage of choice, and then sharing their sensitive data with Facebook Companies envisaged in the policy," the Delhi High Court has observed while upholding the proposed investigation of Competition Commission of India (CCI) into WhatsApp's privacy policy.
A division bench comprising of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad dismissed the appeals filed by WhatsApp and its parent company Meta (formerly Facebook) against a single bench order declining to interfere with CCI's investigation into the 2021 privacy policy.
Noting that WhatsApp occupies a dominant position in the relevant product market, the Court observed that there exists a strong "lock-in effect" which renders its users incapable of shifting to another platform "despite dissatisfaction with the product" which is exemplified by how, despite an increase in the downloads of other applications like Telegram and Signal when the 2021 Policy was announced, the number of users of WhatsApp remained unchanged.
Also Read: Delhi High Court Dismisses Appeals By Whatsapp, Meta Against CCI Investigation
73. Delhi High Court Grants Bail To Ragpicker Accused In Jahangirpuri Riots Case
Case Title: Jahid v. State
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 800
In a first, the Delhi High Court has granted bail to one Jahid, a rag picker, arrested in connection with the clashes that broke out in city's Jahangirpuri area during a Hanuman Jayanti procession.
Jahid, an 18 to 19 year old man, was in custody since April 17, 2022.
Justice Yogesh Khanna was of the view that Jahid was not identified in any of the CCTV footages. The Court also observed that investigation against him was completed as chargesheet stood filed in the matter.
"Looking at his period of custody; the investigation being complete, and the petitioner being no more required for the purpose of investigation, is admitted to bail on his executing a personal bond of Rs.20,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court/Duty MM," the Court ordered.
74. Unilateral Constitution Of A Narrow Panel Of Arbitrators Violates Impartiality : Delhi High Court
Case Title: Overnite Express Ltd v. DMRC
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 801
The High Court of Delhi has held that the power conferred on one party to unilaterally choose names from a panel of arbitrators and forwarding it to the other party to select its arbitrator from those names is violative of principle of impartiality in arbitration.
The Bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna held that such a unilateral exercise of power creates space for suspicion regardless of the merit of the selected arbitrators who happens to be retired District Judges.
The Court took a divergent view of its judgment in IWorld Business Solutions v. DMRC, wherein similar panel of five Members who were all retired District Judges was considered and it was held that considering that they were all retired Addl. District Judges/ District Judges, their impartiality and neutrality could not be questioned and the panel was held to be valid for nomination of any one as an Arbitrator.
75. 12th Board Result| CBSE's Caution Must While Taking Decisions Affecting Lakhs Of Students, Legitimate Expectation Doctrine Attracted: Delhi HC
Case Title: DEVASRI BALI v. CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDRY EDUCATION & ANR
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 802
The Delhi High Court has observed that a greater degree of care and caution, as well as due diligence is required on part of the functionaries and office bearers of Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) to ensure that due process is not violated at the higher echelons while taking decisions that affect the lives of lakhs of students.
Justice Chandra Dhari Singh added that while the Board's dedication and efforts to undertake continuous and comprehensive reforms and innovations in education is commendable, the responsibility vested and the trust reposed in the Board is also magnified.
The Court was dealing with a plea filed by a student aged 18 years who had appeared in the Class XII CBSE Board Examination for the Academic Session 2021-2022.
76. "Frivolous": Delhi High Court Dismisses PIL Against Withdrawal Of DTC Bus Service From Private Schools
Case Title: Baba Alexander v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 803
Calling it a frivolous petition, the Delhi High Court has recently dismissed a public interest litigation seeking directions to the Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC) to reconsider its decision of withdrawing DTC bus services to private schools in the city.
A division bench headed by Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma added that it is always open to the DTC to review its decision as and when it feels that there are enough buses with it to be given to schools for the purpose of carrying children from their residences to schools and vice versa.
"Though this Court finds that the present petition is a frivolous petition, however, this Court is not inclined to impose costs on the Petitioner," the Bench also comprising of Justice Subramonium Prasad added.
77. Yardstick For Determining Infringement Of Trade Dress Is Overall Impression Of Design, Subtle Dissimilarities Irrelevant: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Diageo Brands BV & Anr. v. Great Galleon Ventures Ltd.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 804
The Delhi High Court has held that that yardstick for determining infringement of a registered design is 'visual effect' and 'ocular impression' of the product as a whole.
The test is not to look out for subtle dissimilarities, but rather, to see if there is substantial and overall similarity in the two designs.
" Impugned design need not be an exact replica to constitute infringement. Minor changes in size are insignificant as the overall and substantial similarity is glaring and undeniably apparent to the naked eye," a single bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula observed.
The observation was made while deciding a suit filed by Diageo Brands, manufacturer of famous whisky brand 'Black Dog' against another alcohol manufacturer Great Galleon Ventures.
78. Assessee Entitled To Refund Of Unutilized CENVAT Credit On Account Of Export Of Legal Services: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Commissioner of CGST Delhi East Versus Anand and Anand
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 805
The Delhi High Court has held that the assessee is entitled to a refund of unutilized CENVAT credit under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 on account of the export of legal services under rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.
The division bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju observed that, as per Rule 5, as long as the service provider provides an output service which is exported without payment of service tax, such a service provider will be eligible for a refund of CENVAT credit.
The respondent/assessee is a firm of legal practitioners, which renders legal services to its clients both in India and outside India. The assessee specialises in rendering services in the field of intellectual property rights and, as per a finding of fact returned by the Tribunal, 75-80% of its receipts are from the export of legal services. The assessee has sought a refund of unutilized CENVAT credit on account of the export of legal services under Rule 5.
79. Person Having Consensual Physical Relationship Not Required To Judicially Scrutinse Other Person's Date Of Birth: Delhi High Court
Title: HANZLA IQBAL v. THE STATE & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 806
"The person, who is in a consensual physical relationship with another person, is not required to judicially scrutinise the date of birth of the other person," the Delhi High Court has observed.
Justice Jasmeet Singh made the observation while granting bail to a man accused in a rape case. The complainant had alleged that after becoming friends, in September 2019, the petitioner called her to a hotel and established a physical relationship with her and also made her video, thereby blackmailing her.
The complainant further alleged that the petitioner forced her to have physical relationships with different people under the threat of releasing the video.
It was also alleged that around August, 2021, the complainant managed to escape from the petitioner's house where she was held captive, after which she met an advocate who helped her lodging the FIR.
On the other hand, it was the petitioner's case that the date of incident as alleged was September, 2019, whereas the FIR was filed after three years in 2022.
80. Welfare State Expected To Create Conducive Conditions For Disabled Citizens, Provide Avenues For Public Employment: Delhi High Court
Case Title: VISHV MOHAN v. DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING AND ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 807
The Delhi High Court has observed that a welfare State is expected to create conditions which are conducive to citizens with disabilities by providing them avenues for public employment.
A division bench comprising of Justices Sanjeev Sachdeva and Tushar Rao Gedela was of the view that under the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, the State is enjoined to create conditions and opportunities for the welfare and betterment of the citizens with disabilities and those who are differently abled.
"The Central Government had enacted the said Act to ensure that the citizens falling in this category are not deprived of their rightful means of livelihood in respect of public employment. It is with a view to give impetus to the beneficial provisions of the said Act, that the Central Government and the State Governments created various avenues for public employment of such differently abled citizens," the Court said.
81. Plaintiff Cannot Value Suit Differently For Purpose Of Jurisdiction & For Payment Of Court Fees: Delhi High Court
Case Title: RAJINDER SINGH BHATIA v. MANJU BHATIA
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 808
The Delhi High Court has observed that a plaintiff cannot adopt a dual policy of valuing the suit at a certain value for the purpose of jurisdiction and payment of court fees.
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna further added that though it is in the discretion of the plaintiff to value his suit as per his bona fide belief and discretion, but once the suit has been valued in terms of sec. 8 of the Suit Valuation Act, the court fee shall become payable on the same amount in terms of sec. 7 of the Court Fees Act.
The Court made the observation while dealing with an application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC filed on behalf of defendant in the suit for rejection of the plaint on account of payment of deficient court fees.
82. S.227 CrPC | Judge Cannot Act As Mouthpiece Of Prosecution While Deciding Discharge Application, Must Consider Broad Probabilities Of Case: Delhi HC
Case Title: SMT. SHIPALI SHARMA v. State & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 809
The Delhi High Court has observed that a judge, in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 227 of CrPC, cannot merely act as the post office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before it.
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav added that the Judge should not make a roving inquiry into the pros and cons of the matter or weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial.
Section 227 of the Code provides for discharge of an accused. It states that upon consideration of the record of the case, documents submitted and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution, if the Judge considers that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused.
83. Mere Possession Of Tehbazari Right Does Not Entitle Occupant To Usurp Govt Land, Raise 'Pucca' Construction: Delhi High Court
Case Title: VED PRAKASH MANCHANDA v. DELHI URBAN SHELTER IMPROVEMENTBOARD & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 810
The Delhi High Court has observed that mere possession of a Tehbazari right does not entitle the occupant to usurp the Government land or to raise 'pucca' construction over it.
Justice Gaurang Kanth was dealing with a plea filed by one Ved Prakash Manchanda seeking directions on the authorities to regularise his long and continuous occupation in his favour in respect of premises of a property in city's Madangir, by way of executing a Lease Deed or other document.
It was the petitioner's case that since 1990-91 he was enjoying this site as a Tehbazari site and the Respondents authorities used to collect License Fee, damages and penalty from time to time. The petitioner also claimed that electricity connection was sanctioned in his favour based on the 'No Objection Certificate' issued by the authorities.
84. Sanction For Prosecution U/S 197 CrPC Can Be Postponed To Later Stage Unless Acts Complained Of Intricately Connected To Official Function: Delhi HC
Case Title: SHRI B K PARCHURE v. STATE
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 811
The Delhi High Court has observed that there is no legal bar to always postpone the requirement of sanction at a later stage of proceedings. If the acts complained of have a connection with the official duty, provision of Section 197 CrPC is attracted for obtaining sanction immediately at the time of taking cognizance.
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav observed:
"….there is no doubt that a question of sanction can arise at any stage of proceedings but the same gets attracted immediately at the time of taking cognizance, if the facts of the case or act of the accused, are so intricately connected to his official function that it cannot be segregated. There is no legal bar to always postpone the requirement of sanction at a later stage...If Section 197 of Cr.P.C. is construed too narrowly it can never be applied, to any of the acts committed by a public servant as no public servant can be allowed to commit an offence in the discharge of his official duty. The entire legislative intent would be frustrated."
85. Delhi High Court Sets Aside Arbitral Award Requiring ISRO's Commercial Arm 'Antrix' To Pay Over 560 Million USD To Devas Multimedia
Case Title: ANTRIX CORPORATION LTD. v. DEVAS MULTIMEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 812
The Delhi High Court has set aside a 2015 arbitral award directing Antrix Corporation Limited, commercial and marketing arm of ISRO, to pay US$ 562.2 million to Devas Multimedia Private Limited over wrongful repudiation of contract.
Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva held that the arbitral award dated September 14, 2015 suffered from patent illegalities and fraud and was also in conflict with the Public Policy of India.
The Court thus allowed the plea filed by Antrix under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
86. Transfer Orders In Armed Forces A Necessary Exigency Of Service, Can't Be Interfered With Unless Arbitrary/ Malafide: Delhi High Court
Case Title: SGT. NAVNEET KUMAR SINGH (977823-F) v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 813
The Delhi High Court has observed that issuance of Posting Order resulting in transfer, especially for all those pertaining to Armed Forces, is a necessary exigency of service which should not be interfered by a Court as the Armed Forces are the best judges to exercise their own discretion.
"Posting Order resulting in transfer, which is in the absence of a violation of any statutory requirements, rules, regulations or like or which is unless vitiated by some sort of bias or malafide or vindictiveness further do not call for any interference from Courts," a division bench comprising of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Saurabh Banerjee added.
87. No Bar On Trial Courts In Deciding Issues Having No Precedent, Previously Undecided By Any Superior Court: Delhi High Court
Case Title: OM PRAKASH v. THE DELHI PINJRAPOLE SOCIETY (REGO.)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 814
The Delhi High Court has observed that the Trial Courts are wholly competent to decide the questions of fact and law which may arise before them, many of which may be res integra and previously undecided by any superior court.
Justice C Hari Shankar added that the a Trial Court is well within its authority to decide all such issues and can even be the first judicial authority to take a view on a subject.
The Court also has stressed upon expeditious disposal of proceedings before the District Courts observing that the same has become a pressing necessity in today's day and age.
88. Not Mandatory To Grant Anticipatory Bail Merely Because Interim Protection Was Granted At Initial Stage Of Proceedings: Delhi High Court
Case Title: BHARTI SAHANI v. STATE (GOVT. OFNCT OF DELHI)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 815
The Delhi High Court has observed that mere enjoyment of the interim benefit granted by it does not, in any manner, lessen the allegations which need to be considered on merits.
Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta added that the Court is required to consider the nature of accusations, supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tampering with witnesses or apprehension of threat to complainants and prima facie satisfaction in support of charge.
89. Re-assessment Order Passed Without Considering Detailed Reply Of The Assessee: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Rithala Education Society Versus Union Of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 816
The Delhi High Court held that the significance of issuing a show cause notice prior to issuing a re-assessment notice has been lost because the order under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act was made without taking into account the detailed reply filed by the assessee.
The division bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh has observed that the department has not examined the petitioner's plea that the petitioner-society has included all the transactions carried out by the Citizen Model School in its books of accounts.
90. Delhi High Court Allows Deduction To PVR On Difference Between Market Price & Issue Price Of ESOP
Case Title: PVR Ltd. Versus Commissioner Of Income Tax
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 817
The Delhi High Court has allowed the appeal of PVR Ltd. and allowed the deduction on the difference between the price at which stock options were offered to employees of the appellant company under ESOP and ESPS and the prevailing market price of the stock.
The division bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora has relied on the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Biocon Ltd. and has observed that an assessee is entitled to claim a deduction under Section 37(1) if the expenditure has been incurred. The expression "expenditure" will also include a loss, and therefore, the issuance of shares at a discount where the assessee absorbs the difference between the price at which they are issued and the market value of the shares would also be expenditure incurred for the purposes of Section 37(1).
91. "Not Seen Instigating The Crowd": Delhi High Court Grants Bail To Another Accused In Jahangirpuri Riots Case
Case Title: Babuddin v. State
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 818
The Delhi High Court today granted bail to one Babuddin, an accused in relation to the clashes that broke out in April in city's Jahangirpuri area during a Hanuman Jayanti procession.
Noting that Babuddin was in custody since April 27, a single judge bench comprising of Justice Yogesh Khanna granted bail after observing that he was no more required for further investigation.
The Court also noted that chargesheet qua the accused has already been filed and that a co-accused was also recently granted bail in the FIR in question.
92. MOU Between Private Parties Cannot Be Specifically Enforced; Party Not Entitled To Interim Relief Under Section 9 Of A&C Act: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Royal Orchids versus Kulbir Singh Kohli & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 819
The Delhi High Court has ruled that a MOU which is in the nature of a commercial transaction between two private parties is by its very nature determinable and hence, the said MOU can be terminated even in the absence of any termination clause contained in it.
The Single Bench of Justice Mini Pushkarna held that since the MOU was not capable of specific performance due to the statutory bar contained in Section 14 (d) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, the party was not entitled to any interim relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act).
93. Urgent Need To Prevent Depleting Green Cover: Delhi High Court Orders Parties To Deposit 25K Cost Towards Green Highways Fund
Case Title: ANIL KUMAR & ORS. v. THE STATE & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 820
The Delhi High Court has quashed a cheating FIR of 2017 following a settlement between the parties and imposed a cost of Rs. 25,000 on the accused persons as well as the complainant to be utilized for plantation of trees along the national highways.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma directed that the cost be deposited in the Green Highways Fund which is formed pursuant to a project for Greening (Plantation & Its Maintenance) of National Highways, launched by the Ministry of Road Transport & Highways.
94. Sanction Of Resolution Plan U/S 31 IBC Does Not Discharge Liability Of Guarantor Towards Loan Agreement: Delhi High Court
Case Title: SANJAY SARIN v. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, CANARA BANK & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 821
The Delhi High Court has recently reiterated that where proceedings are initiated under the SARFAESI Act and the borrower is aggrieved by any of the actions of the bank for which it has remedy under the Act, no writ petition should be entertained.
Justice Sanjeev Narula further observed that the extent of liability of a personal guarantor would have to be determined in light of the agreement between the borrower, i.e., the corporate debtor and the personal guarantor, for which the appropriate forum would be the Debt Recovery Tribunal and not the High Court.
95. Indian Courts Can Direct 'Telegram' To Disclose Info Of Copyright Infringers Using Its Platform, Server Being In Singapore No Defence: Delhi HC
Case Title: NEETU SINGH & ANR. v. TELEGRAM FZ LLC & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 822
The Delhi High Court has observed that copyright infringers cannot be permitted to seek shelter under messaging platform Telegram's policies merely on the ground that its physical server is in Singapore.
Justice Pratibha M Singh added that Indian Courts would be perfectly justified in directing Telegram, which runs its massive operations in India, to adhere to Indian law and orders passed by them for disclosure of relevant information relating to infringers.
The bench further observed that the disclosure of personal data for the purpose of any proceedings, which would include proceedings related to infringement of copyright, would be a recognized exception to data privacy under Personal Data Protection Act, 2012 of Singapore.