Citations 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1135 TO 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1215NOMINAL INDEXSOCIAL JURIST, A CIVIL RIGHTS GROUP v. KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1135JUSTICE FOR ALL v. HONBLE LG OF DELHI AND ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1136Web Overseas Limited versus Universal Industrial Plants Manufacturing Company Private Limited 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1137INSOLVENCY AND BANKRUPTCY BOARD...
Citations 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1135 TO 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1215
NOMINAL INDEX
SOCIAL JURIST, A CIVIL RIGHTS GROUP v. KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1135
JUSTICE FOR ALL v. HONBLE LG OF DELHI AND ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1136
Web Overseas Limited versus Universal Industrial Plants Manufacturing Company Private Limited 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1137
INSOLVENCY AND BANKRUPTCY BOARD OF INDIA v. STATE BANK OF INDIA & ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1138
SWISS BIKE VERTRJEBS GMBH SUBSIDIARY OF ACCELL GROUP v. IMPERIAL CYCLE MEG. CO. (PARTNERSHIP FIRM) & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1139
ADOBE, INC v. NAMASE PATEL AND OTHERS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1140
RAMESH KAUSHIK v. STATE OF DELHI 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1141
R.K. Overseas Versus Senior Intelligence Officer, DRI 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1142
Rahul Jain v. Atul Jain, ARB. P. 539 of 2017 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1143
LIVING MEDIA INDIA LIMITED & ANR. versus TELEGRAM FZ LLC & ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1144
MRS. X v. GNCTD & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1145
SUSHIL KR. JAIN( ADVOCATE) v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1146
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI vs GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1147
SHWETA v. GNCTD AND ANR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1148
Spectrum Power Generation Limited v. GAIL (India) Limited 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1149
FARIDA BEGUM vs GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH DY LABOUR COMMISSIONER & ANR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1151
PCIT Versus Simon India Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1152
Ram Kumar v. Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. FAO (COMM.) 60 of 2021. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1153
SANJAY PANDEY v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1154
SRI DESARAJU VENUGOPAL v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1156
JOLLY SINGH v. THE STATE 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1157
UMESH BABU vs JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1158
POWER INFRASTRUCTURE INDIA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1159
New India Assurance Company Limited v. Khanna Paper Mills Limited 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1161
Union of India v. Reliance Industries Limited 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1162
M/S BANK OF BARODA & ANR vs MAHESH GUPTA & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1163
SHIV VINAYAK GUPTA & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1164
ADITI GOSWAMI v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1165
SADIQ ALIAS SAHIL v. STATE OF NCT DELHI 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1166
NOKIA TECHNOLOGIES OY vs GUANGDONG OPPO MOBILE TELECOMMUNICATIONS CORP LTD & ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1167
Saurabh Shukla v. Max Bupa Insurance & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1168
VINOD KUMAR v. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY APPELLATE BOARD AND ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1169
Union of India v. RCCIVL-LITL (JV) 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1170
Ramacivil India Constructions Pvt Ltd versus Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1171
ABHISHEK AGARWAL v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1172
WORLD PHONE INTERNET SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1173
MUKESH SHARMA vs MINISTRY OF FINANCE REPRESENTED THROUGH ITS SECRETARY & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1174
MANISH LENKA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1175
Brilltech Engineers Pvt. Ltd. v. Shapoorji Pallonji and Co. Pvt Ltd 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1176
BRIJESH GUPTA vs SMT SAROJ GUPTA 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1177
BAJRANG v. MINISTRY OF SOCIAL JUSTICE AND EMPOWERMENT & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1178
MAKEMYTRIP INDIA PVT LTD MMT & ANR. v. COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1179
Pooja vs State Of Gnct Of Delhi & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1180
RAMESHWAR JHA v. THE PRINCIPAL RICHMOND GLOBAL SCHOOL & ORS. and other connected matters 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1181
LAXMAN THAKUR v. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1182
UDDHAV THACKERAY v. THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA & ANR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1183
C.A. SANJAY JAIN v. INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF INDIA & ORS. and other connected matters 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1184
PRAVEEN YADAV AND ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1185
PCIT Versus PEC Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1186
Dhruv Krishan Maggu Versus Principal Directorate General 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1187
Always Remember Properties Private Limited versus Reliance Home Finance Limited & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1188
Super Blastech Solutions v. Rajasthan Explosives and Chemicals Limited 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1189
Geo Chem Laboratories Pvt Ltd v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1190
RAJ KUMAR v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1191
INDIAN PILOTS GUILD & ANR v. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF CIVIL AVIATION & ANR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1192
Umesh v. State (and other connected matters) 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1193
VIJAY AGRAWAL THROUGH PAROKAR v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1194
PRAVEEN GARG v. THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AND ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1195
AADESH KUMAR AND ORS. v. SH. AMIT SINGLA AND ANR. and other connected matters 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1196
Gorang Gupta v. GOVT. OF NCT & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1197
RANAJIT ROY v. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1198
SUCHITA SHRIVASTAVA v. RESERVE BANK OF INDIA 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1199
GULAM MAHABUB v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1200
MAN MOHAN PATNAIK v. CISCO SYSTEMS CAPITAL INDIA PVT.LTD & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1201
D.S. CHEWING PRODUCT LLP & ORS. v. FOOD SAFETY OFFICER 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1202
AB MAURI INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED v. VICKY AGGARWAL & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1203
HAMDARD NATIONAL FOUNDATION (INDIA) & ANR v. SADAR LABORATORIES PVT LTD 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1204
Harsh Vibhore Singhal v. The Cabinet Secretary Government of India & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1205
ReNew Hans Urja Pvt. Ltd. vs. Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1206
Rajinder Kumar Versus State 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1207
M/s. Vallabh Textiles Versus Senior Intelligence Officer 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1208
DLF Ltd. versus IL&FS Engineering and Construction Company 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1209
Welspun One Logistics Parks Fund I versus Mohit Verma & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1210
STATE v. DENIS JAUREGUL MENDIZABAL 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1211
National Highways Authority of India v. Lucknow Sitapur Expressway Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1212
ZYDUS WELLNESS PRODUCTS LTD. v. DABUR INDIA LIMITED 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1213
YOGESH PARIHAR v. DELHI TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1214
PCIT Versus Pawa Infrastructure (P) Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1215
Title: SOCIAL JURIST, A CIVIL RIGHTS GROUP v. KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1135
The Delhi High Court has directed the Union Government and Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (KVS) to sanction the posts of 987 special educators for catering to the needs of 5,625 special children studying in various Kendriya Vidyalayas.
"In order to enable the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan to appoint 987 special educators, eight weeks' time is granted to the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and to the Union of India to sanction the post of 987 special educators," a division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad said.
Title: JUSTICE FOR ALL v. HONBLE LG OF DELHI AND ORS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1136
The Delhi Government has informed the High Court that it is evolving a transparent, uniform and hassle-free admission process for children under economically weaker section (EWS) category in private unaided recognized schools.
A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad was also told that a portal has been developed displaying the number of vacancies, and that the parents can apply online for the vacancies available under the admission quota.
Case Title: Web Overseas Limited versus Universal Industrial Plants Manufacturing Company Private Limited
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1137
The Delhi High Court has ruled that in a suit filed by a party, the time spent by the opposite party in pursuing its application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), cannot be excluded for the purpose of computation of the limitation period for filing the counter-claims by the opposite party before the Arbitral Tribunal.
The bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Amit Mahajan held that the benefit of Section 14 (1) of the Limitation Act, 1963 is available only to the plaintiff who has been prosecuting civil proceedings against the defendant, and not to the defendant who is resisting a claim.
The Court added that filing of an application under Section 8 of the A&C Act cannot be construed as a party pursuing his claim before a Court so as to avail the benefit of Section 14(1) of the Limitation Act.
Title: INSOLVENCY AND BANKRUPTCY BOARD OF INDIA v. STATE BANK OF INDIA & ORS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1138
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) cannot assume the power to declare as illegal or ultra vires any of the provisions of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016 or Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016.
Justice Pratibha M Singh said that the jurisdiction to deal with the validity and legality of the Regulations framed under the IBC is not conferred upon the NCLT.
Title: SWISS BIKE VERTRJEBS GMBH SUBSIDIARY OF ACCELL GROUP v. IMPERIAL CYCLE MEG. CO. (PARTNERSHIP FIRM) & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1139
The Delhi High Court has directed two Ludhiana-based firms to cease fresh manufacturing of 'Rallies' bicycles after a subsidiary of Switzerland based Accell Group alleged trademark infringement in relation to similar products being manufactured by it under 'Raleigh' mark.
Justice Pratibha M Singh also directed the entities - Imperial Cycle Mfg. Co. and Rocket Cycles Private Limited, to shut down their website www.ralliesbikes.com, within a period of one week.
The court was dealing with a suit filed by Swiss Bike Vertriebs GMBH against the two Punjab-based entities seeking permanent injunction for restraining them from infringing its trademark 'RALEIGH' used for bicycles, cycles or bikes.
Case Title: ADOBE, INC v. NAMASE PATEL AND OTHERS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1140
The Delhi High Court has awarded over two crores as damages in favour of Adobe, a US-based multinational computer software company, while decreeing its suit alleging infringement of its registered trademark 'ADOBE' by one Namase Patel.
The cyber squatter is accused of registering confusingly similar domain names in respect of computer software and other IT related services.
Justice C Hari Shankar permanently restrained Namase Patel and any other person associated with him from registering any domain names which incorporate or use the trademarks "ADOBE", "PHOTOSHOP" or "SPARK" in a manner which could result in infringement of Adobe's marks.
Trial Court Record Lost, Delhi High Court Sets Aside Conviction 19 Years After Verdict
Title: RAMESH KAUSHIK v. STATE OF DELHI
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1141
Over 19 years after the appeal was admitted, the Delhi High Court has set aside the conviction and sentence awarded to a man in 2003 for culpable homicide not amounting to murder — as the trial court record could not be found or re-constructed despite repeated efforts.
Justice Jasmeet Singh allowed the appeal filed by one Ramesh Kaushik challenging the conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial court in October 2003.
"I am of the view that in order to affirm the conviction of the appellant, the perusal of the Trial Court Record is the essential element of hearing of the appeal. Every appellant has a right to satisfy the Appellate Court that the material evidence available on record did not justify his conviction and this is a valuable right which cannot be denied to an appellant," said the court.
Export Proceeds Not Remitted Within Time; Duty Drawback To Be Recovered: Delhi High Court
Case Title: R.K. Overseas Versus Senior Intelligence Officer, DRI
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1142
The Delhi High Court has held that the exporter is otherwise not entitled to duty drawback and, if already paid, is liable to be reimbursed because the buyer did not send any export proceeds within the required time frame.
The division bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju has observed that since the amount that is lying credited to the petitioner's account, concededly, represents a part of the duty drawback sanctioned in favor of the petitioner against 20 shipping bills, no such direction can be issued that would ultimately result in the petitioner getting access to the funds.
Requirement Of Notice Of Arbitration Is Not A Mere Technicality: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Rahul Jain v. Atul Jain, ARB. P. 539 of 2017
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1143
The High Court of Delhi has held that a notice of arbitration is sine qua non for commencing an arbitral proceeding and invalidity of invocation goes to the very root of the matter and hits the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain applications arising out of the arbitration proceedings.
The bench of Justice Prateek Jalan held that requirement of a notice of arbitration is not a mere technicality and its non-compliance cannot be ignored merely because the instrument was a family settlement agreement.
The Court also held that the finding of the Court, regarding the non-existence of the arbitration agreement, made on an application under Section 8 of the A&C Act would be final and binding on the parties if remains unchallenged before the filing of the petition under Section 11 of the A&C Act.
Title: LIVING MEDIA INDIA LIMITED & ANR. versus TELEGRAM FZ LLC & ORS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1144
Nearly a week after it disclosed before Delhi High Court the admin names, phone numbers and IP Addresses of users accused of sharing copyrighted study material in a suit filed by a teacher, Telegram has again shared in sealed cover the identity details of more users who have been accused by India Today Group of infringing its trademarks and copyrights.
In the order dated November 29, Justice Amit Bansal recorded that pursuant to the order passed by the court on October 18, Telegram "has placed on record the identity/Basic Subscribers Information of the defendants in a sealed cover".
The court ordered that the data filed on behalf of Telegram be provided in a sealed cover to the counsels for the plaintiff "with a clear direction that neither the plaintiffs nor the counsels shall disclose the said data to any third party, except for the purposes of the present proceedings."
Title: MRS. X v. GNCTD & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1145
The Delhi High Court this week ruled that ultimate choice in the pregnancy cases involving fetal abnormalities is of the mother and emphasised that the medical boards in such cases must give qualitative reports.
Justice Singh said the opinion of the medical board in such cases of termination of pregnancy is of considerable importance for the assistance of the courts.
"Such opinions cannot be sketchy and fragmented. They ought to be comprehensive in nature," said the judge.
The court further said that in such cases, speediness coupled with qualitative reports is of utmost importance.
"There ought to be some standard factors on which the opinion should be given by the board to whom such cases are referred. Such factors ought include medical condition of the fetus. While giving the scientific or medical terminologies, some explanation in laypersons terms as to the effect of such condition ought to be mentioned. Alternatively, medical literature could be an annexed with opinion."
Title: SUSHIL KR. JAIN( ADVOCATE) v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1146
The Delhi High Court refused to entertain a public interest litigation seeking immediate deportation of people from Africa, Bangladesh and other foreign nationals allegedly living without a valid visa or passport in the national capital.
A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad dismissed as withdrawn a plea filed by Advocate Sushil Kumar Jain. The plea also claimed the foreign nationals are living as tenants in Delhi without any proper verification.
Title: MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI vs GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1147
The Delhi High Court has directed its Registry to ensure that the petitioners array the workman as first respondent in the petitions assailing the order or award passed by labour courts or any other statutory authority, where the workman is a contesting respondent so that he or she is easily able to locate the writ petition in the cause list.
The direction was issued by Justice Rekha Palli on the judicial side while hearing petitions filed by the Delhi Municipal Corporation against recovery certificates issued in favour of the workmen by the Deputy Labour Commissioner.
Justice Palli said that when the writ petitions assailing the awards or orders passed by the labour court are filed by the management including the municipal corporation, the Delhi government is impleaded as first respondent and the workmen are generally impleaded as respondent two or three. The court said due to such practice, the title of the petitions assailing different awards becomes identical and it causes confusion to the workmen.
Title: SHWETA v. GNCTD AND ANR
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1148
The Delhi High Court has quashed an FIR registered against a first year law student who appeared before a Metropolitan Magistrate as a proxy counsel on instructions from a lawyer for taking adjournment in two cases.
Observing that the law student, who was interning with an advocate, was either confused or unable to handle the situation, Justice Anish Dayal said:
"It is evident that a law student should not appear as a proxy counsel or counsel in any matter before any court of law, prior to being properly enrolled by a Bar Council and being admitted to the Bar."
The court quashed the FIR registered under sections 419 (punishment for cheating by personation) and 209 (dishonestly making false claim in court) of the Indian Penal Code.
Case Title: Spectrum Power Generation Limited v. GAIL (India) Limited, ARB. P. 746 of 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1149
The High Court of Delhi has held that an issue that purely relates to the inter se liability of the parties regarding the burden of GST is not related to the taxing power of the State, therefore, the same is arbitrable.
The bench of Justice Yashwant Varma held that a dispute surmised on the Pricing Clause in an agreement wherein the inter se liabilities of the parties regarding the payment of taxes are given can be referred to arbitration.
The Court held that in situations where "debatable and disputed facts" arise or in respect of "good reasonable arguable cases", the Court should force parties to raise the same before the Arbitral Tribunal which has the primary jurisdiction to decide all disputes including jurisdictional challenges which may be raised including with respect to non-arbitrability.
High Court Cannot Review The Order Passed Under Section 11 Of The A&C Act: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Kush Raj Bhatia v. M/S DLF Power & Services Ltd. ARB. P 869/2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1150
The High Court of Delhi has held that the High Courts cannot review an order passed under Section 11 of the A&C Act as the Act does not contain any provision for review.
The bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna held that power of review is not an inherent power but the creation of a statute, therefore, it cannot be exercised absence of a provision. The Court held that unlike the Supreme Court which by virtue of Article 137 enjoys the inherent power of review, there is no such power conferred on a High Court.
The Court held that once an application for the appointment of the arbitrator has been heard and rejected, the same cannot be re-opened by an indirect method i.e., review petition.
Title: FARIDA BEGUM vs GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH DY LABOUR COMMISSIONER & ANR
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1151
Observing that the landlord cannot be made to suffer indefinitely due to misconduct of the tenant, the Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi government to de-seal a property which was sealed last year after it was found that the tenant had engaged children for his tailoring business.
Justice Prathiba. M Singh said the petitioner is merely the landlady of the subject property and one of her sources of income is its rent.
"She cannot be made to suffer indefinitely due to misconduct of the tenant. Moreover, ld. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the tenant has not paid even up-to-date rent, and the landlady has already suffered immensely. There are no allegations against the Petitioner of having been complicit in any manner with the tenant," said the court.
Case Title: PCIT Versus Simon India Ltd.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1152
The Delhi High Court has held that reinstatement of year-end losses on forward cover purchase contracts is allowable in spite of the fact that the forward contracts have not been closed.
The division bench of Justice Vibhu Bakharu and Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, while upholding the findings of the tribunal, held that the loss on account of forward contracts cannot be considered speculative.
Case Title: Ram Kumar v. Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. FAO (COMM.) 60 of 2021.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1153
The High Court of Delhi has held that disclosure by the arbitrator under Section 12 r/w 6th Schedule of the A&C Act is not a discretionary but a mandatory requirement. The Court held that the failure of the arbitrator to disclose a fact that might give rise to a justifiable doubt as to his impartiality vitiates the arbitral proceedings as well as the consequent award.
The bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Amit Mahajan set aside an arbitral award passed without the arbitrator making the necessary disclosure. The Court held that disclosure is a necessary safeguard to ensure the integrity and efficacy of arbitration, therefore, the same cannot be an option but an obligation.
The Court held that the onus of disclosing the necessary information is on the arbitrator itself and a party cannot be precluded from challenging the award on the ground that it did not raise any such challenge before the arbitrator itself.
Title: SANJAY PANDEY v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1154
The Delhi High has ruled that tapping phone lines or recording calls without the concerned individual's consent is a breach of privacy as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
"I am prima facie of the view that tapping phone lines or recording calls without consent is a breach of privacy. The right to privacy enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution demands that phone calls not be recorded. Only with consent of the individuals concerned, can such activity be carried out otherwise it will amount to breach of the fundamental right to privacy," Justice Jasmeet Singh said.
The court made the observations while granting bail to Sanjay Pandey, the former Mumbai Police Commissioner, in a money laundering case related to the alleged illegal phone tapping of employees by National Stock Exchange (NSE).
ISEC Services Private Limited, an entity which had entered into a contract with NSE for analysing data and evaluating cyber vulnerabilities, was allegedly also asked by the NSE in 2009 to analyse the pre-recorded calls of its employees. This was purportedly done to "identify and isolate suspicious calls bearing on the issue of data and information security and cyber and process vulnerability".
Title: ANTI-CORRUPTION COUNCIL OF INDIA THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY MOHD KAMRAN KHAN v. STATE & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1155
The High Court has directed Delhi Government to ensure completion of its project for installing panic buttons and Automatic Vehicle Location Tracking System (AVLTS) in all DTC and cluster buses plying in the national capital.
A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad said that the task must be completed within a time-frame which has been decided as per the terms and conditions of the agreement executed between the Delhi Government and contractor.
The court passed the direction while disposing of a public interest litigation filed in 2019 seeking direction for making arrangements for protection of travellers in the buses from crimes like snatching, theft and eve teasing.
Title: SRI DESARAJU VENUGOPAL v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1156
The Delhi High Court has said Section 173(8) CrPC gives an "unfettered right" to the investigation agency for further investigation "with no conditions" and it cannot be restricted since such restrictions do not exist in the statute.
"The Statute does not limit the right to investigate under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. only till the trial begun," said Justice Yogesh Khanna.
Section 173(8) of the Code states that further investigation can be done in respect of an offence wherein a police report or chargesheet has been forwarded to the Magistrate.
Justice Khanna said it is not mandatory to take prior permission from the Magistrate for 'further' investigation even after the filing of the charge sheet as it is the statutory right of the police. The material collected in further investigation cannot be rejected merely because it has been filed at the stage of trial, said the court.
Title: JOLLY SINGH v. THE STATE
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1157
The Delhi High Court has ruled that once a magistrate passes an order under Section 156 (3) CrPC directing registration of FIR on a complaint, it is not open for the police to raise an objection regarding territorial jurisdiction.
Quashing an order passed by an Additional Commissioner of Police whereby the investigation in an FIR alleging abduction was transferred to from Delhi's Model Town police station to Uttar Pradesh's Greater Noida, Justice Jasmeet Singh said:
"Once the order has been passed by the magistrate directing investigation, it is not open to the police to raise objection regarding territorial jurisdiction. In fact, in the present case, the Addl. Commissioner of Police has transferred investigation from Delhi to Greater Noida, U.P. This is tantamount to reviewing the order of MM which only a superior court has the authority to do".
Title: UMESH BABU vs JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1158
The Delhi High Court has directed the Jawaharlal Nehru University to forthwith issue a relieving order to enable an employee of the varsity to proceed on a short-term deputation with Indian Council for Cultural Relations in Mozambique.
The petitioner Umesh Babu had applied for deputation of 11 months as Teacher Indian Culture at ICCR's Cultural Centre and successfully cleared the interview for it in November 2021. He was issued an offer of appointment in April 2022. However, his employer JNU refused to issue him a relieving order on the ground of pendency of an inquiry into alleged fraudulent LTC claims.
Justice Jyoti Singh said it is a matter of record that the Inquiry Officer has rendered a finding that charges levelled against the petitioner have not been proved and has absolved him in the case alleging violation of Rule 3 of CCS(Conduct) Rules, 1964, Rule 16 of CCS (Leave Travel Concession) Rules, 1988 and provisions of CCS (Classification, Control and Appeal), Rules, 1965, as well as other Rules governing the terms and conditions of service of non-teaching staff of the University.
Title: POWER INFRASTRUCTURE INDIA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1159
The Delhi High Court has asked the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) to consider the prevalent position with regard to e-filing of documents across courts and tribunals in the country, while disposing of a petition which sought quashing of the order that requires physical filing of documents before the tribunal for the purpose of computation of limitation.
As per an office order issued by NCLAT on October 21, it is mandatory for lawyers and parties to file case documents in hard copy along with e-filing receipt. It further states that the period of limitation shall be computed from the date of presentation of appeals i.e. physical filing.
"Suffice it to observe that the prevalent position with regards to e-filing of documents across Courts and Tribunals in the country, encouraging e-filing, which may become the norm in the future, would duly be taken into consideration by the Tribunal," Justice Prathiba M Singh said.
Title: Master Arnesh Shaw v. Union of India & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1160
The Delhi High Court has called for preparation of a plan to publicize the crowdfunding platform, which has been setup under the national policy for rare diseases, among top private companies and public sector undertakings (PSUs) for receiving their contributions under Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR).
Justice Prathiba M Singh was hearing a clutch of petitions concerning children suffering from rare diseases like Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy (DMD), Hunter's syndrome. The pleas seek directions to provide them free of cost treatment, which is otherwise very expensive.
Noting that the court had directed setting up of a crowdfunding platform by the Centre under National Rare Diseases Policy on March 23, 2021, Justice Singh said:
"The said crowdfunding platform is operational, however, it appears that the same requires to be publicized in order to attract funding from the general public and corporate entities as also PSUs."
Case Title: New India Assurance Company Limited v. Khanna Paper Mills Limited, O.M.P. (COMM) 496/2020
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1161
The High Court of Delhi has held that the fact that a party signed on a blank Discharge Voucher indicates that it was acting under pressure and compulsion and did not sign the document out of free will.
The bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar held that a discharge voucher signed out of economic duress and compulsion would not extinguish the legitimate claims of a party and it would be open to the party to claim the remaining amount.
The Court also held that the non-supply of documents on which the amount as given under the discharge voucher is based also indicates that it was not signed out of free will.
Case Title Union of India v. Reliance Industries Limited
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1162
The Delhi High Court has held a challenge to the mandate of the arbitrator on the ground of bias and a justifiable doubt with respect to the independence and impartiality cannot be raised under Section 14 of the A&C Act.
The bench of Justice Yashwant Varma held that Section 14 of the Act confers the power on the Court to terminate the mandate of the arbitrator and appoint a substitute arbitrator only in circumstances that fall within the 7th schedule of the Act that deals with de jure ineligibility of the arbitrator, however, ground of bias or justifiable ground as to the independence and impartiality falls within the 5th Schedule r/w Section 12(3) wherein only the tribunal can decide on the challenge.
The Court held that Section 12, 13 and 14 though appearing to constitute a composite statutory scheme dealing the challenge to and termination of the mandate of the arbitrator, however, they provide for separate causeways for a challenge that can be raised.
Title: M/S BANK OF BARODA & ANR vs MAHESH GUPTA & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1163
The Delhi High Court has ordered release of compensation of over Rs 18 Lakh in favour of the kin of a man, who died as a result of the injuries suffered due to falling of a signboard on his head in 2011.
The division bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju in the ruling considered the question regarding applicability of the defence of vis major or act of God and principle of res ipsa loquitur.
The court said the defence of act of God to ward off strict liability would not be available to the bank "since the hazard presented by a signboard coming off the facade of the building was a foreseeable event given the fact that Delhi experiences high-velocity winds, in May, each year".
Title: SHIV VINAYAK GUPTA & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1164
The Delhi High Court on Monday directed the Delhi Government to ensure compliance of Prohibition of Electronic Cigarettes (Production, Manufacture, Import, Export, Transport, Sale, Distribution, Storage, and Advertisement) Act, 2019.
Ordering the authorities to conduct periodic checks in the localities, a division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad also asked the Delhi Police to take steps to ensure that such e-cigarettes are not sold near and around schools and colleges in the national capital.
The court passed the order while refusing to entertain a public interest litigation seeking constitution of a court monitored committee to review the effective implementation of the statute.
CASE TITLE: ADITI GOSWAMI v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1165
The Delhi High Court has held that in cases of organ transplant from a non-near relative, the difference in financial position of the donor and the recipient, by itself, cannot be a reason strong enough to establish a commercial element.
Justice Prathiba M Singh made the observation in a judgment allowing a petition seeking expeditious disposal of an application for kidney transplant.
"The Court is satisfied that there is no commercial transaction involved in the donation of the kidney in the case at hand. Accordingly, the application filed by the Petitioner before the Authorization Committee for transplant of the Donor's kidney to the Recipient is allowed subject to above conditions," said the court.
Title: SADIQ ALIAS SAHIL v. STATE OF NCT DELHI
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1166
The Delhi High Court has rejected the fourth bail plea of a man accused of assaulting and pelting stones at police personnel during the 2020 North-East Delhi riots.
Justice Poonam A. Bamba denied bail to one Sadiq alias Sahil who was arrested on April 14, 2020. His first bail plea was dismissed as withdrawn in September 2020. Thereafter, he was denied bail by High Court and trial court on September 14, 2021 and February 9, 2022 respectively.
The FIR was registered on February 25, 2020 on the basis of a complaint made by a constable alleging that a violent mob started pelting stones on the policemen on duty, thereby injuring more than 50 police personnel and death of Head Constable Ratan Lal.
Title: NOKIA TECHNOLOGIES OY vs GUANGDONG OPPO MOBILE TELECOMMUNICATIONS CORP LTD & ORS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1167
The Delhi High Court recently dismissed Nokia's application seeking a direction to Chinese smartphone manufacturer Oppo for deposit of an amount with the court as "royalty" for alleged infringement of its patents in cellular technology.
Nokia owns three Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) which are stated to be necessary to make cellular systems 2G, 3G, 4G or 5G compliant. The Finnish multinational company last year filed a suit before the High Court accusing Oppo of infringing its patents.
Oppo in 2018 had obtained a license from Nokia for utilising its SEPs on payment of royalty at FRAND rates. The license expired in 2021 but, according to Nokia, Oppo continued to use its SEPs without renewal of the agreement or taking of any fresh license.
Title: Saurabh Shukla v. Max Bupa Insurance & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1168
The Delhi High Court directed the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (IRDAI) to call a meeting of all insurance companies to ensure that the products are designed for persons with disabilities so as to enable them to obtain health insurance coverage.
Observing that there is no doubt that persons with disabilities would be entitled to health insurance coverage and products may have to be designed for them, Justice Prathiba M Singh said:
"The IRDAI would accordingly call a meeting of all insurance companies to ensure that products are designed for persons with disabilities and other persons in terms of the circular dated 2 June 2020."
Title: VINOD KUMAR v. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY APPELLATE BOARD AND ORS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1169
The Delhi High Court has said that posts on Facebook cannot be treated as determinative of a person's location at a particular point of time, at least by a court.
Justice C Hari Shankar made the observation while dealing with a case wherein the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) in December 2020 had asked the Bar Council of India to take action against two lawyers for allegedly falsely seeking adjournment, through a proxy counsel, on the ground that they were in quarantine due to COVID-19. The lawyers represented a respondent before IPAB.
Opposing the adjournment request, the applicant before the IPAB had shown the Facebook page of one of the lawyers which purportedly showed his last activity at Marina beach in Chennai. Dismissing the adjournment application with cost of Rs 5000, the IPAB had observed that it has been falsely represented that the main counsel is in quarantine while it has been shown through Facebook posts that he is on a holiday.
Case Title: Union of India v. RCCIVL-LITL (JV)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1170
The Delhi High Court has held that the employer cannot withhold the performance bank guarantee after acknowledgement of the due performance of the contract by the contractor.
The bench of Justice V. Kameshwar Rao held that the employer cannot also withhold the performance bank guarantee merely for securing the amount of its counter-claims.
Case Title: Ramacivil India Constructions Pvt Ltd versus Union of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1171
The Delhi High Court has reiterated that Section 42 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) would have no application to proceedings seeking enforcement of arbitral award.
The bench of Justice Yashwant Varma noted that execution application is neither an "arbitral proceeding" within the meaning of Section 42 of the A&C Act, nor is it a subsequent application arising out of the arbitration agreement and thus, the venue restriction provision contained in Section 42 would have no application to enforcement proceedings.
Title: ABHISHEK AGARWAL v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1172
Dismissing a public interest litigation challenging the constitutional validity of Section 5 of the New Delhi International Arbitration Centre Act, the Delhi High Court has said that mere involvement and support of the Centre does not by itself raise apprehension of bias and impartiality.
The provision provides for constitution of New Delhi International Arbitration Centre with following members: one retired judge of High Court or Supreme Court as Chairperson; two eminent persons and a representative of recognised body of commerce and industry appointed and chosen by the Central Government; Secretary of Department of Legal Affairs (Ministry of Law and Justice); one Financial Adviser nominated by Department of Expenditure (Ministry of Finance); and Chief Executive Officer.
The PIL filed by advocate Abhishek Kumar in 2020 argued that it was essential to insulate the DIAC from political and other influences to ensure its independence. Submitting that DIAC predominantly consists of employees of the central government, Kumar said such members cannot make a panel of Arbitrators, where one of the two litigants will be the Central Government itself.
Title: WORLD PHONE INTERNET SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1173
The Delhi High Court has directed Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) to expeditiously hold consultations with stakeholders for giving its recommendations to the union government on the proposed regulatory framework for Over-The-Top (OTT) services like WhatsApp and Facebook Messenger.
"Considering the extensive prevalence and use of internet telephony, TRAI would expeditiously conduct this stakeholders' consultation and give its recommendations accordingly," Justice Prathiba M Singh said in an order.
Title: MUKESH SHARMA vs MINISTRY OF FINANCE REPRESENTED THROUGH ITS SECRETARY & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1174
Rejecting a plea that had sought a direction for declaring the petitioner as the whistleblower of the Punjab and Maharashtra Cooperative (PMC) Bank scam, the Delhi High Court has said the person would have to have a basis in law to claim a reward in respect of the same.
"This Court, at best, can commend the Petitioner if he has played a role in unearthing the said scam, and for discharging his duty as a responsible citizen. No further reliefs can be granted by this Court beyond the said observation," said the court.
Title: MANISH LENKA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1175
The Delhi High Court has said that children with disabilities are entitled to basic facilities such as uniform, computer fee and transportation cost in Kendriya Vidyalaya Schools under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.
"Considering the recognition given to the rights of persons with disabilities, there can be no doubt that these facilities ought to be provided especially at Kendriya Vidyalaya Schools which are government schools present all over the country, in order to ensure that children with disabilities are not deprived of proper education," Justice Prathiba M Singh said.
Invoking CIRP Would Not Make The Dispute Non-Arbitrable : Delhi High Court
Case Title: Brilltech Engineers Pvt. Ltd. v. Shapoorji Pallonji and Co. Pvt Ltd
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1176
The Delhi High Court has held that the dispute would not become non-arbitrable merely because the petitioner, before filing the application for appointment of arbitrator, has filed a corporate insolvency application under Section 9 of the IBC. The Court rejected the argument that since the petitioner has filed insolvency application which can only be filed for admitted debt and there can be no arbitration for admitted debts.
The bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna held that it is settled position of law that jurisdiction of NCLT can be invoked only in respect of determined debts, however, merely because a petition has been by the petitioner asserting that a definite amount is payable by the respondent, would not imply that the claimed amount has been admitted. The Court held that when the respondent has constantly denied its liability to pay, the claimed amount does not transfer into an admitted debt and petitioner can invoke arbitration for resolving the dispute.
Title: BRIJESH GUPTA vs SMT SAROJ GUPTA
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1177
Rejecting a review petition which challenged the court's interpretation of noscitur a sociis and ejusdem generis principles in a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court has said they are intended to be exception to the applicability of an expression's normal etymological connotations in the statute.
Justice C. Hari Shankar said the principle of noscitur a sociis stipulates that a word is to be understood in the light of the company it keeps and the principle of ejusdum generis requires a specific word, which is found in the company of other words which constitutes a genus, to be also interpreted as belonging to the same genus.
Title: BAJRANG v. MINISTRY OF SOCIAL JUSTICE AND EMPOWERMENT & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1178
The Delhi High Court has observed that a mere mistake of filing Income Tax Return (ITR) certificate instead of Income Certificate cannot lead to a situation where an eligible meritorious candidate is deprived of the scholarship, when the two documents prove "same parameters of income requirements".
Justice Prathiba M Singh made the observation while directing the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment to grant scholarship to a law student belonging to SC category under the "Central Sector Scholarship Scheme of Top Class Education for SC Students" within eight weeks.
Title: MAKEMYTRIP INDIA PVT LTD MMT & ANR. v. COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1179
The Delhi High Court has stayed the recovery of Rs. 223.48 crores of penalty imposed on MakeMyTrip by Competition Commission of India (CCI) for allegedly indulging in anti-competitive practices, subject to deposit of 10% of the total penalty amount, imposed by NCLAT as a condition while admitting its appeal.
MakeMyTrip had approached the NCLAT challenging the order passed by CCI. While the appeal was admitted by the appellate tribunal, it directed MakeMyTrip to deposit 10% of the penalty amount imposed by the CCI as a condition for the said admission.
Title: Pooja vs State Of Gnct Of Delhi & Ors
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1180
While hearing a plea moved by the wife of a constable who was the first policeman to die on duty during the first wave of COVID-19, the High Court has said that the Delhi Government "ought not to resile from the clear announcement made" for ex-gratia payment of Rs. 1 crore and that the compensation due to the widow can no longer be delayed.
The petitioner was was expecting her child at the time when her husband, Amit Kumar, passed away while he was posted at city's Deep Chand Bandhu Hospital to ensure adherence to COVID-19 lockdown measures.
Justice Prathiba M Singh has asked the matter to be placed before a "Group of Ministers" as per Delhi Government's cabinet decision dated March 13, 2020.
Title: RAMESHWAR JHA v. THE PRINCIPAL RICHMOND GLOBAL SCHOOL & ORS. and other connected matters
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1181
Observing that a "miserable state of affairs" is prevalent in the national capital as far as implementation of Right to Education Act, 2009 at elementary education level is concerned, the Delhi High Court on Friday directed all schools to ensure that no child belonging to Economically Weaker Section (EWS) under the enactment is denied admission or treated with a conduct that is unwelcoming of them.
Justice Chandra Dhari Singh issued a slew of directions, while disposing of a bunch of pleas concerning the issue of admissions of EWS children in the schools in Delhi. The court said it is important to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 to issue directions for ensuring children belonging to EWS.
The petitioners had sought admission of students under the EWS category under Section 2(e) of the RTE Act in various private schools at the elementary level. The students were given letters by Delhi Government's Department of Education (DoE) confirming their admission in the schools under the RTE Act.
Title: LAXMAN THAKUR v. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1182
Granting bail to a man in a case registered under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, the Delhi High Court has said that the rigours of Section 37 of the enactment will not be applicable in cases where collection of contraband sample itself was faulty.
Section 37 states that bail should not be granted to an accused unless the accused is able to satisfy twin conditions i.e. reasonable ground for believing that the accused is not guilty of such an offence and that the accused would not commit an offence or is not likely to commit an offence, if granted bail.
Justice Jasmeet Singh granted bail to one Laxman Thakur accused in an FIR registered under sections 20 and 29 of NDPS Act. He alleged that the procedure adopted for collection of samples in the case was faulty and in violation of the guidelines issued by the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB).
Title: UDDHAV THACKERAY v. THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA & ANR
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1183
The Delhi High Court has refused to interfere with the observations made by a single judge while dismissing the plea moved by Former Maharashtra Chief Minister Uddhav Thackeray against Election Commission of India (ECI)'s decision to freeze Shiv Sena's 'bow and arrow' party symbol.
The ECI on October 8 had directed both Thackeray and Eknath Shinde's faction to not use the name "Shiv Sena" or symbol "bow and arrow" till their rival claims for the official recognition is finally decided. For the recent Andheri East bypoll, the party factions were allotted different symbols.
A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad said that the Commission will proceed in accordance with the procedure followed by it while adjudicating a petition under Para 15 of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968.
Title: C.A. SANJAY JAIN v. INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF INDIA & ORS. and other connected matters
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1184
The Delhi High Court on Friday held that the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) has the power to suo motu initiate disciplinary proceedings against its members and that a written complaint or allegation is not a sine qua non or prerequisite for taking action.
Justice Yashwant Varma observed that "information" under section 21 of Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 would extend to any material or fact that may come to the notice of ICAI and from which it may derive knowledge.
"Viewed in the aforesaid backdrop, this Court is of the considered opinion that Section 21 does empower the Institute to proceed suo moto and unhindered by the absence of a written complaint or allegation that may be submitted. A written complaint or allegation in writing cannot, in any manner, be understood to be a pre-requisite or a sine qua non for the initiation of action under Section 21," the court said in its ruling running into 106 pages.
Title: PRAVEEN YADAV AND ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1185
Questioning the Ministry of Home Affairs's decision to confine House Rent Allowance (HRA) benefit only to Personnel Below Officer Rank (PBORs), the Delhi High Court has said that every personnel in the paramilitary forces shall be entitled to the benefit irrespective of the rank, as per their entitlement.
A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Saurabh Banerjee has directed the Centre and other authorities to take necessary steps within six weeks, in consultation with Ministry of Home Affairs as well as Ministry of Finance, to grant HRA benefit to such personnel.
"We are unable to find any reason as to why officers belonging to the rank of Officers / Coy Commanders or PBROs, should not be granted similar benefit more so as the factum of their serving at far off locations has been recognized and it cannot be differentiated on cadre basis. We fail to understand why such policy decisions discriminating within the force should be permitted to continue, especially to the officers of the force who spend their lives serving the nation," the court said.
Case Title: PCIT Versus PEC Ltd.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1186
The Delhi High Court has allowed the deduction of expenses undertaken under the Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) endeavor under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The division bench of Justice Rajeev Shakdher and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju has observed that the memorandum, which was published along with Finance (No. 2) Bill 2014, clearly indicated that the amendment would take effect from 01.04.2015 and, accordingly, would apply in relation to assessment year 2015-2016 and the subsequent years.
The department has assailed the ITAT's order allowing the deduction of expenses undertaken under the Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) endeavor under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Delhi High Court Refuses To Release Laptop, Computer, Documents, Seized By DGGI During Search
Case Title: Dhruv Krishan Maggu Versus Principal Directorate General
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1187
The Delhi High Court has refused to release laptops, computers, documents, and other things that were seized by the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI) during the search.
The single bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh has observed that the "documents, books, or things" can be retained for a maximum period of four and a half years, within which period the notice has to be issued, plus thirty days from the date of the erroneous refund.
Can Recall Section 11 A&C Act Order, If It Suffers From Patent And Manifest Error: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Always Remember Properties Private Limited versus Reliance Home Finance Limited & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1188
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the power exercised by the High Court under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) is not merely an administrative function but a judicial power, and that the Court does not cease to be a Court of Record while exercising power under Section 11.
Thus, the bench of Justice Yashwant Varma held that the High Court can recall the order passed by it under Section 11 of the A&C Act if it suffers from a patent and manifest error apparent on the face of the record.
Case Title: Super Blastech Solutions v. Rajasthan Explosives and Chemicals Limited
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1189
The Delhi High Court of has held that a dispute arising out of an Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) or Memorandum of Settlement (MoS), wherein no arbitration clause is present, can be referred to arbitration if these agreements were directly linked to the main agreement.
The bench of Justice Mini Pushkarna held that dispute arising out of any subsequent agreement that arises out of the main agreement containing the arbitration clause can be referred to arbitration.
The Court further reiterated that the arbitration clause survives the termination of the main agreement, therefore, the arbitration clause would remain effective despite the termination principal agreement in which it is embedded.
Case Title: Geo Chem Laboratories Pvt Ltd v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1190
The Delhi High Court has held that when the scope of arbitration clause is limited to quantum of damages only in the eventuality that the liability to pay is admitted by the insurance company, there can be no arbitration if the liability is denied.
The bench of Justice V. Kameshwar Rao held that the suggestions given by the Surveyor in its report, though of substantial evidentiary value, are not binding on the insurance company.
The Court also held that as per the IRDA (Protection of Policyholders‟ Interests) Regulations, 2017, the appointment of surveyor is a mandatory requirement and cannot be said to be an admission as to the liability to pay by the insurance company.
Title: RAJ KUMAR v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1191
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a plea moved by an ex-serviceman of Indian Army seeking appointment in a subsidiary company of Indian Railways, on the basis of the graduation certificate issued by the Army, as a Junior Assistant (Finance) under ex-Servicemen quota.
The ex-serviceman Raj Kumar's argument was that since he was having the experience of "working in Administration / Accounts / Finance / Budget / Logistics in the Army", he has the essential qualification for the post of Junior Assistant (Finance). The qualification sought for by RITES for the post was B.COM/BBA (Finance)/BMS (Finance).
Title: INDIAN PILOTS GUILD & ANR v. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF CIVIL AVIATION & ANR
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1192
The Delhi High Court has observed that testing of aviation personnel, including pilots, cabin crews and Air Traffic Controllers (ATCs), for psychoactive substances is essential, considering the nature of services being rendered by them.
Justice Prathiba M Singh gave nod to the implementation of Civil Aviation Requirements (CAR) issued by the Ministry of Civil Aviation on January 31 for detecting any behavioural, cognitive and physiological changes due to use of such substances by aviation personnel.
"After perusing CAR as also after hearing parties and their counsels, it is clear that the testing of personnel for psychoactive substances is essential, considering the nature of services being rendered," the court said.
Case Title: Umesh v. State (and other connected matters)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1193
Directing Delhi State Legal Services Authority (DSLSA) to move applications on behalf of the victims of sexual offences for compensation in the cases registered between 2012 to 2017, the Delhi High Court has clarified that there will be no requirement to file a separate application for condonation of delay to seek compensation in such cases.
Observing that since no limitation for filing an application for compensation is provided under Section 357(A) of the Cr.PC or Section 33 of the POCSO Act, such a provision under the Part-II of the Delhi Victims' Compensation Scheme (DVCS)-2018 cannot be used or invoked in a hyper- technical manner to defeat the rights of the victim for whose assistance and support the entire Scheme has been formulated.
Title: VIJAY AGRAWAL THROUGH PAROKAR v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1194
Observing that a prisoner suffering from serious health ailments should be given an opportunity to undergo adequate medical treatment, the Delhi High Court has said that the discretion of granting interim bail on medical grounds may not be exercised only at a stage when the person is breathing last or is in the position that he may not survive.
Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma said howsoever serious the offence may be, the health condition of a human being is paramount. The court said the health concern of a person has to be taken care of by the State and keenly watched by the judiciary.
Title: PRAVEEN GARG v. THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AND ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1195
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a plea challenging the constitutional validity of the recently-amended Rule 9(2) of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1970.
"In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Dheeraj Mor v. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, we are unable to accept that Rule 9(2) of the Rules, as set out above, falls foul of Article 233 of the Constitution of India. On the contrary, Rule 9(2) of the Rules is in conformity with the decision in the case of Deepak Aggarwal v. Keshav Kaushik & Ors," said the court.
Under the Rule 9 (2), a candidate "must have been continuously practising as an advocate for not less than seven years as on the last date of receipt of applications" for recruitment of judicial officers.
Title: AADESH KUMAR AND ORS. v. SH. AMIT SINGLA AND ANR. and other connected matters
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1196
The High Court has directed the Delhi Government to pay salaries and other dues to the Auxiliary Nurse Midwives (ANMs), who were engaged for a short term last year for COVID vaccination centres in the national capital.
Justice Jyoti Singh ordered that the payments shall be released by the Delhi Government within a period of six weeks.
"It needs no overemphasis that discharging the functions of ANMs, Petitioners have contributed to a large extent to the society in the most testing and unprecedented times of COVID-19 and it would be travesty of justice if they were deprived of their emoluments for the period they served the Respondents and the society," the court said.
Title: Gorang Gupta v. GOVT. OF NCT & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1197
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation moved by a lawyer against the practice of affixing sacred images of gods on walls as a measure to prevent public urination, spitting and throwing garbage.
A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad said that it is not the duty of a constitutional court to regulate and monitor the movement of each citizen to see whether one indulges in public urination, spitting and littering.
"The concern raised by the petitioner would be better addressed by civic bodies and not by this Court," it said.
Title: RANAJIT ROY v. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1198
While dealing with matters relating to sexual harassment of school going children, paramount consideration is to be given to the well-being of the child whose mental psyche is vulnerable, impressionable and in a developing stage, the Delhi High Court has observed.
The division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad said long-term effects of childhood sexual harassment are at many times insurmountable.
"An act of sexual harassment, therefore, has the potential to cause mental trauma to the child and may dictate their thought process for the years to come. It can have the effect of hindering the normal social growth of the child and lead to various psychosocial problems which could require psychological intervention."
Title: SUCHITA SHRIVASTAVA v. RESERVE BANK OF INDIA
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1199
Hearing a plea moved by a female employee of Reserve Bank of India (RBI), the Delhi High Court has directed the regulatory body to reconsider its master circular which excludes the cases of medical complications arising due to pregnancy from grant of advance sick leave to the employees.
Justice Jyoti Singh was hearing a plea moved by an Assistant Manager of RBI seeking a direction that the issues or complications arising out of pregnancy be treated as covered under para 6.5 of the Master Circular issued by the regulatory body on July 1, 2020 01.07.2020.
The plea also sought direction for grant of advance sick leave to her as per para 6.5 with consequential benefits of salary and allowances after adjusting her absence for the period of her leave.
Title: GULAM MAHABUB v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1200
Hearing a Bihar resident's plea alleging that Lok Nayak Hospital (LNJP) was providing facility of free MRI test only to the residents of national capital, the Delhi High Court on Tuesday said that the government hospitals have to treat all the citizens, irrespective of their place of residence.
Emphasising that the hospitals cannot insist on voter IDs of citizens, Justice Prathiba M Singh observed that citizens, who come from outside, cannot be stopped from seeking treatment.
The court also noted that in one of its earlier judgments, it has been held that medical treatment has to be given to all citizens without any consideration to their place of residence.
Title: MAN MOHAN PATNAIK v. CISCO SYSTEMS CAPITAL INDIA PVT.LTD & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1201
The Delhi High Court has said that prima facie, merely being a signatory to a cheque does not, in itself, make a person guilty of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Observing that the offence is triggered at the stage when a cheque is returned unpaid by the bank for insufficiency of funds, Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani said:
"For guilt to be imputed to an officer of a company, at the very least, the officer should have been responsible for the business and affairs of the company and for honouring the cheque on the date that the cheque was returned unpaid."
Title: D.S. CHEWING PRODUCT LLP & ORS. v. FOOD SAFETY OFFICER
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1202
The Delhi High Court has observed that a prosecution cannot be initiated under Food Safety and Standard Act, 2006 for any lack on part of the manufacturer in labelling a chewing tobacco product.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said that such a prosecution will have to be dealt as per the provisions of Cigarettes and other Tobacco Products (Packaging and Labelling) Rules, 2008 and section 20 of Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act, 2003 or any other law applicable therein.
"Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the settled position of law, when the product in question is admittedly chewing tobacco, application of FSSA, 2006 is ruled out," the court added.
Title: AB MAURI INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED v. VICKY AGGARWAL & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1203
The Delhi High Court has initiated criminal contempt proceedings against defendants in a suit after the Registrar (Vigilance)'s inquiry revealed that they placed a fabricated Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) order on record as part of a compilation of documents handed over to the court during a hearing last month.
Justice Jyoti Singh said any person who takes recourse to deflect the course of judicial proceedings and interferes with administration of justice, must be dealt with a heavy hand. There is a wealth of judicial precedents that filing of forged and fabricated documents in a court to obtain relief is interference with administration of justice, said the court.
Title: HAMDARD NATIONAL FOUNDATION (INDIA) & ANR v. SADAR LABORATORIES PVT LTD
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1204
The Delhi High Court has observed that the mark "Rooh Afza" has acquired immense goodwill and has served as the "source identifier" for the sharbat being manufactured by Hamdard National Foundation (India) and Hamdard Dawakhana for over a century.
Observing that "Rooh Afza" mark requires a high degree of protection and it is essential to ensure that the competitors keep a safe distance from it, a division bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan restrained Sadar Laboratories Private Limited from manufacturing and selling any product under the trademark "DIL AFZA" till the disposal of the trademark infringement suit filed by the former.
Delhi High Court Dismisses PIL Against Carrying Of Kirpans In Domestic Flights
Case Title: Harsh Vibhore Singhal v. The Cabinet Secretary Government of India & Ors
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1205
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation challenging notifications that allow Sikh passengers to carry Kirpans of specific measurements on person in domestic flights.
A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad noted that that Explanation I of Article 25 of the Constitution of India clarifies that wearing and carrying of Kirpans shall be deemed to be included in the profession of the Sikh religion.
" Keeping in view the dictum of the Apex Court, the Circular bearing No.14/2005 dated 15.04.2005 and the Impugned Notification dated 04.03.2022 which is under challenge in the instant PIL, and also keeping in mind the Explanation - I to Article 25 of the Constitution of India, this Court is of the opinion that the decision of giving exemption for carrying Kirpan to Sikh passengers vide the abovementioned Circular and Impugned Notification has been arrived at by the Government after due deliberations," the court observed.
Case Title: ReNew Hans Urja Pvt. Ltd. vs. Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1206
The Delhi High Court has granted interim protection against the retrospective denial of the vested right of the benefit of concessional rate of duty under project import regulations granted to solar power developers.
The Division Bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju have directed the customs authorities to refrain from taking any precipitative steps at the time of import of goods pursuant to the registration of contracts under the Project Import Regulations, 1986.
Case Title: Rajinder Kumar Versus State
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1207
The Delhi High Court upheld the prosecution for an undisclosed foreign bank account, observing that the age at the time of the offense must be taken into account, not when the proceedings were initiated.
The single judge bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait has relied on the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Pradip Burman vs. Income Tax Office, in which it was held that Circular/Instruction No. 5051 dated 07.02.1991 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) does not bar the initiation of prosecution for those who have attained the age of 70 years.
Case Title: M/s. Vallabh Textiles Versus Senior Intelligence Officer
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1208
The Delhi High Court has directed the GST department to return the amount of Rs. 1.80 crores along with 6% interest as the recovery of tax made during the search was not voluntary.
The division bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju has observed that no recovery of tax should be made during search, inspection, or investigation unless it is voluntary.
The petitioner/assessee is in the business of trading in ready-made garments (RMG) and is also engaged in selling these very goods on behalf of third parties in the domestic market on a commission basis.
Moratorium Under Companies Act, 2013, Parties Cannot Be Referred To Arbitration: Delhi High Court
Case Title: DLF Ltd. versus IL&FS Engineering and Construction Company
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1209
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the moratorium granted by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), staying the institution of suits and proceedings against the Corporate Debtor, after the resolution process is initiated against it under Sections 241 and 242 of the Companies Act, 2013, is akin to an order of moratorium passed under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC). Thus, in view of the moratorium issued by the NCLAT, the Corporate Debtor cannot be referred to arbitration.
The bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao was dealing with an application filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), seeking reference of the dispute to arbitration.
Case Title: Welspun One Logistics Parks Fund I versus Mohit Verma & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1210
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the dispute between the parties under an agreement titled as a "Non-Binding Term Sheet", can be referred to arbitration, holding that the Arbitration Clause contained in the said agreement was binding between the parties.
The bench of Justice Navin Chawla observed that though the nomenclature of the agreement was "Non-Binding Term Sheet", the Arbitration Clause contained in the agreement was specifically made binding on the parties. It held that whether the other covenants of the Term Sheet were non-enforceable, is not to be considered by the Court at the stage of considering an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act).
Title: STATE v. DENIS JAUREGUL MENDIZABAL
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1211
The Delhi High Court has observed that refusal by an accused to get a search conducted before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate under section 50 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 would be vitiated if he misunderstands, misinterprets or even due to miscommunication of the questions put to him.
Justice Anish Dayal observed that the requirements of section 50 being mandatory in nature, are in consonance with the right of an accused to know of his legal rights.
"The compliance of such requirements should therefore, be complete and not left in doubt. A mandatory requirement by definition, has to be complied with in toto, in its full letter and spirit, and not as a halfway measure or in a patchy, perfunctory manner or deficient manner," the court said.
Case Title: National Highways Authority of India v. Lucknow Sitapur Expressway Ltd.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1212
The Delhi High Court has held that an order of the tribunal rejecting the application for impleading a party to arbitration is not an interim award but merely a procedural order, therefore, the same cannot be challenged under Section 34 of the Act.
The bench of Justice Yashwant Varma held that an arbitral tribunal, during the continuance of arbitral proceedings, passes many orders and for an order to fall within the rubric of interim award it has to necessarily have certain features. The Court held that for an order to be understood as an award, it has to be decision on the merits of the dispute that conclusively determines a substantive claim, issue or question that exists between the parties.
Title: ZYDUS WELLNESS PRODUCTS LTD. v. DABUR INDIA LIMITED
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1213
The Delhi High Court has ruled that an advertiser ought to have the freedom to make advertisements with generic comparison highlighting features of its own product and that an objection to it cannot be raised unless representation being made is absolutely false or misleading.
Justice Prathiba M Singh said that mere allusions, in the absence of a decipherable comparison, would not be sufficient to make out a case of generic disparagement.
Title: YOGESH PARIHAR v. DELHI TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1214
The Delhi High Court has observed that students who resort to unfair means in examinations and get away with it cannot build this nation and must be dealt with a heavy hand.
"Persons using unfair means to steal march over students who work hard to prove their worth has to be dealt with a heavy hand. Students, who resort to unfair means and get away with it, cannot build this nation. They cannot be dealt with leniently and they should be made to learn a lesson not to adopt unfair means in their life," a division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad observed.
Compensation On Cancellation Of Leasehold Rights Over A Plot, Capital Receipt: Delhi High Court
Case Title: PCIT Versus Pawa Infrastructure (P) Ltd.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1215
The Delhi High Court has held that the leasehold rights held by the assessee in the plot were a capital asset and that the compensation received by the assessee from the Government of Goa on the cancellation of the plot was a capital receipt and not a revenue receipt.
The division bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora has observed that if an agreement for the transfer of rights in an immovable property is not performed by the transferor, the transferee is entitled to compensation as he/she is deprived of the price of escalation. Therefore, the character of the payment received as compensation by the transferee bears the character of a capital receipt. The payment of interest in the facts of the present case is compensatory in nature and, therefore, does not bear the character of a revenue receipt.