Citations 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 103 to 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 186NOMINAL INDEXPink City Expressways Pvt Ltd versus Aaron Security & Services Pvt Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 103GMR Pochanpalli Expressways Limited v. NHAI 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 104M/s Raj Chawla and Co. Stock & Share Brokers versus M/s Nine Media & Information Services Ltd. & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 105SONAM RAWAL v. UNIVERSITY...
Citations 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 103 to 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 186
NOMINAL INDEX
Pink City Expressways Pvt Ltd versus Aaron Security & Services Pvt Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 103
GMR Pochanpalli Expressways Limited v. NHAI 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 104
M/s Raj Chawla and Co. Stock & Share Brokers versus M/s Nine Media & Information Services Ltd. & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 105
SONAM RAWAL v. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI AND ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 106
NT v. VT 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 107
AMAR SINGH EX NB SUB & ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. and other connected matters 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 108
Sun Renewables Rt Pvt Ltd versus Ministry of New and Renewable Energy, Union of India & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 109
NEERAJ MEHTA & ANR. v. TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 110
Damodar Valley Corporation versus Union of India & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 111
East India Hotels Ltd. Versus Commissioners of Customs, General Excise and Central GST 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 112
RUBA AHMED & ANR. v. HANSAL MEHTA & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 113
Ozone Research & Applications (I) Pvt Ltd versus Ahluwalia Contracts (India) Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 114
NHAI v. IJM GAYATRI JV, OMP (COMM.) 235 of 2021 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 115
BACHPAN BACHAO ANDOLAN v. GNCTD & ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 116
Ehtesham Qutubuddin Siddique v. Cpio, Ministry Of Home Affairs 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 117
NITYA NAND GAUTAM v. CENTRAL BEREAU OF INVESTIGATION 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 118
Flowmore Ltd versus Skipper Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 119
M/s Special Cables Pvt Ltd versus Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 120
ASHWINI KUMAR UPADHYAY v. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 121
LOUIS VUITTON MALLETIER vs CAPITAL GENERAL STORE & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 122
HP Cotton Textile Mills Ltd versus Oriental Insurance Company Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 123
Ambrosia Corner House Pvt Ltd versus Hangro S Foods 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 124
Blackstone Capital Partners (Singapore) VI FDI Three Pte. Ltd. Versus ACIT 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 125
P v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 126
SR. SEPHY v. CBI & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 127
AX v. GOOGLE LLC & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 128
RR Patil Foundation & Anr. v. Archaeological Survey of India & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 129
SOCIAL JURIST, A CIVIL RIGHTS GROUP v. RAJIV GANDHI CANCER INSTITUTE AND RESEARCH CENTRE AND ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 130
CHITRA RAMKRISHNA v. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 131
Shahrukh Pathan v. State 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 132
Kidde India Ltd versus National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 133
NATASHA NARWAL & ANR v. STATE OF NCT DELHI & ANR 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 134
Raman Bhuraria versus Directorate Of Enforcement 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 135
SONALI KARWASRA v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 136
TARU PURI v. ANMOL SHEIKH ALIAS MALAIKA & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 137
COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v UNION OF INDIA 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 138
AKASH versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 139
PO v. VP 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 140
Intercontinental Great Brands versus Parle Product Private Limited 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 141
Hinu Mahajan v. Union of India 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 142
M/s Oasis Projects Ltd versus Managing Director, National Highway and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd (NHIDCL) 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 143
K. P. RAO v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS and other connected matters 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 144
SUNIL PODAR v. THE NATIONAL TRUST FOR WELFARE OF PERSON WITH AUTISM, CEREBRAL PALSY, MENTAL RETARDATION AND MULTIPLE DISABILITIES AND ANR 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 145
University of Delhi versus M/s Kalra Electricals 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 146
HDFC Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd versus Bindu Paswan & Anr 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 147
HERMES INTERNATIONAL & ANR. v. CRIMZON FASHION ACCESSORIES PRIVATE LIMITED 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 148
SANDEEP SINGH DESWAL v. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 149
DABUR INDIA LIMITED v. ASHOK KUMAR AND ORS and other connected matters 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 150
KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKEN INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS LLC v. THE REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 151
ELSEVIER LTD. AND ORS. v. ALEXANDRA ELBAKYAN AND ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 152
DB v. RB 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 153
COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 154
Milan Saini v. Kamal Kumar & Anr. and other connected matters 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 155
Ghanshyam Pandey versus Union of India & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 156
Jindal Exports and Imports Pvt Ltd vs. Director General of Foreign Trade & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 157
VED YADAV v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 158
Master Arnesh Shaw v. Union of India & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 159
Sunil Kumar Chandra versus M/s Spire Techpark Pvt Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 160
WINZO GAMES PRIVATE LIMITED v. GOOGLE LLC & ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 161
PARMINDER SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 162
JAI A. DEHADRAI AND ANR v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 163
BHUPINDER SINGH & ANR. v. LT GOVERNOR OF DELHI & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 164
Asad Mueed & Anr versus Hammad Ahmed & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 165
HARSHPAL SINGH SAWHNEY & ORS v. CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION & ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 166
SARWAR RAZA v. OMBUDSMAN RBI & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 167
Delhi Waqf Board v. Union of India & Ors 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 168
PUNJAB KESARI PUBLISHING HOUSE PVT LTD & ANR vs AJIT SINGH BULAND & ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 169
M/s. Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd & Anr. versus Shipra Estate Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 170
D Narasimha Rao & Ors versus Revanta Multi State CGHS Ltd & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 171
HARDIK KAPOOR v. BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA & ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 172
MALVIKA CHOUDHARY & ORS. v. BAR COUNCIL OF DELHI & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 173
COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. REHMAN AFTAB ALAM 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 174
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. v. CR 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 175
Shyam Jaju & Anr. v. Saurabh Bhardwaj & Ors. LiveLaw (Del) 176
TTK Prestige Ltd versus KK & Company Delhi Pvt Ltd & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 177
MOHD. MANAN DAR v. NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY and other connected matters 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 178
Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd vs M/s Zillion Infraprojects Pvt Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 179
Bolt Technology OU versus Ujoy Technology Private Limited & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 180
DEVENDRA KUMAR & ORS. v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 181
KAMALJEET SEHRAWAT v. OFFICE OF LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR OF DELHI & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 182
Shapoorji Pallonji and Company Private Limited versus Union of India 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 183
HARSH AJAY SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS and other connected matters 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 184
New Delhi Municipal Council versus Decor India Pvt Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 185
Tejpal Singh versus Surinder Kumar Dewan 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 186
Case Title: Pink City Expressways Pvt Ltd versus Aaron Security & Services Pvt Ltd
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 103
The Delhi High Court has upheld the arbitral reference made to a common Sole Arbitrator as well as a common State of Claims filed before the Arbitral Tribunal, with respect to a dispute arising under two separate agreements, considering the fact that the agreements were closely interlinked and contained identical Arbitration Clauses, stipulating same conditions.
The bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh remarked that the services the respondent/claimant was providing under the two agreements, were connected services. Considering the ‘allied nature’ of the two contracts and the common conditions of the Arbitration Clauses, the filing of a common claim petition before the Arbitral Tribunal cannot be faulted with, the Court said.
Case Title: GMR Pochanpalli Expressways Limited v. NHAI
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 104
The Delhi High Court has held that the Court cannot grant a relief which is final in nature in an application under Section 9 of the A&C Act.
The bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh held that relief contemplated under Section 9 of the Act is only interim in nature I.e., ‘in the intervening time’ or ‘provisional’ and it has to be in aid of the enforcement of the award and subject to the final relief given in the award. The Court refused to injunct the respondent from withholding the payment on account of alleged delay as the Court observed that the relief claimed by the petitioner was final in nature as it was neither subject to any award or in aid of any enforcement.
Case Title: M/s Raj Chawla and Co. Stock & Share Brokers versus M/s Nine Media & Information Services Ltd. & Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 105
The Delhi High Court has reiterated that since the the amended provisions of Section 29A (1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) are essentially procedural in character, they would apply even to arbitrations pending on the date the amended provision was brought into force.
Section 29A (1) of A&C Act, as amended by the 2019 Amendment Act, w.e.f. 30.8.2019, provides that an arbitral award must be rendered within 12 months from the date of completion of pleadings before the Arbitral Tribunal as per Section 24 (3).
Title: SONAM RAWAL v. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI AND ORS
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 106
The Delhi High Court has said that the University of Delhi needs to take “immediate corrective measures” for removal of misleading information on admission eligibility criteria from its official website.
Justice Vikas Mahajan said such contradictory and misleading criteria not only creates confusion in the minds of the candidates but also leads to unwarranted litigation.
“….the University of Delhi needs to take immediate corrective measures in identifying and removing all such material from its website which mentions the eligibility criteria for admission to any course, contrary to the one stipulated in the Bulletin of Information or the statutory Rules, Regulations and Ordinances of the University, for such contradictory and misleading criteria not only creates confusion in the minds of the candidates but also leads to unwarranted litigation,” the court said.
Title: NT v. VT
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 107
Expressing a prima facie view, the Delhi High Court has said that the protection under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is not available to a husband or male member of the family, in view of sections 2(a) of the statute.
Section 2(a) defines an “aggrieved person” as any woman who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship with the 'respondent' and alleges to have been subjected to any act of domestic violence.
Justice Jasmeet Singh was hearing a plea moved by a wife challenging the proceedings initiated by her husband under section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act.
Title: AMAR SINGH EX NB SUB & ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. and other connected matters
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 108
A full bench of Delhi High Court has clarified that final orders of the Armed Forces Tribunal can be challenged before High Court.
A full bench of Justice Manmohan, Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna answered a reference seeking a clarification that whether the right of appeal against the final orders of the Armed Forces Tribunal excludes the remedy of judicial review by High Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction.
Case Title: Sun Renewables Rt Pvt Ltd versus Ministry of New and Renewable Energy, Union of India & Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 109
The Delhi High Court has said that the purpose of Achievement-Linked Incentives and Awards Scheme under ‘Grid Connected Rooftop and Small Solar Power Plants Program’ is to increase the installation and use of solar panels for the purpose of encouraging renewable energy projects.
“In the opinion of the Court, the Scheme is a beneficial scheme the purpose of which is to promote private participation and incentivise energy efficiency. Thus, in such cases literal / technical construction ought to be avoided. Rather, the authorities ought not to follow a pedantic approach but a pragmatic approach that fulfils the purpose for which the Scheme was made,” the court said.
Justice Prathiba M Singh said climate change is a cause for concern and harnessing solar energy is the need of the hour.
Title: NEERAJ MEHTA & ANR. v. TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 110
The Delhi High Court has asked the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (IRDAI) to consider "the manner in which products" of health insurance policy "can be designed for persons with hearing disabilities and implants."
Justice Prathiba M Singh said that IRDAI, while submitting its position to the court, shall consider the existing policies and guidelines as may be applicable to persons with disabilities.
The court passed the order in addition to the directions given in Saurabh Shukla v. Max Bupa Health Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors., wherein it had asked IRDAI to call a meeting of all insurance companies to ensure that products relating to health insurance coverage are designed for persons with disabilities.
Case Title: Damodar Valley Corporation versus Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 111
Setting aside the observations made by Central Information Commission (CIC) against Damodar Valley Corporation (DVC) and the costs imposed by the statutory body against its CPIO in a RTI case related to workplace sexual harassment, the Delhi High Court has directed the Public Sector Undertaking to pay a cost of Rs 75,000 to the RTI applicant in view of the long-drawn battle he had to undertake.
"The only issue that now remains is whether Respondent No. 2 who has been litigating since 2016 has to be awarded any litigation costs in the matter. In the opinion of the Court, while disagreeing with the approach of the CIC of making sweeping observations, in view of the long-drawn battle that the Respondent had to undertake, the ends of justice would be met by awarding costs of Rs.75,000/- to Respondent No.2," said the court.
Aircraft Imported For Private Purposes, No Customs Duty Exemption Allowed: Delhi High Court
Case Title: East India Hotels Ltd. Versus Commissioners of Customs, General Excise and Central GST
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 112
The Delhi High Court has held that the aircraft was imported for private purposes and not for providing non-scheduled passenger or charter services. Therefore, the condition for customs duty exemption was not available to the assessee.
The division bench of Justice Vibhu Bhakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan has observed that the appellant has not used the aircraft for providing air transport service for remuneration of any kind. The provision of non-scheduled (passenger) services, as defined under clause (b) of the explanation to Condition No. 104 of the exemption notification, entails providing air transport services to the public at large on the basis of payment of the published tariff.
Title: RUBA AHMED & ANR. v. HANSAL MEHTA & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 113
The Delhi High Court refused to stay release of filmmaker Hansal Mehta’s movie Faraaz which is based on the terrorist attack that took place on July 01, 2016, at Holey Artisan, Dhaka, Bangladesh.
A division bench of Justice Siddharth Mridul and Justice Talwant Singh directed the filmmaker and producers to “scrupulously adhere” to the disclaimer which states that the film is inspired by the attack and elements contained in it are pure works of fiction.
The court was hearing an appeal moved by two women, who lost their daughters in the attack, against the order of the single judge who had refused to grant interim relief against release of the movie.
Case Title: Ozone Research & Applications (I) Pvt Ltd versus Ahluwalia Contracts (India) Ltd
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 114
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the ‘Seat’ of arbitration would be the place where the Facilitation Council under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSMED Act) has conducted the arbitral proceedings as per the provisions of Section 18(4) of the MSMED Act.
The bench of Justice Prateek Jalan remarked that since there was no arbitration agreement between the parties containing a jurisdiction clause, and since the Facilitation Council under the MSMED Act had assumed jurisdiction and rendered the arbitral award in Nagpur where the supplier was located, in view of Section 18(4), therefore, the seat of arbitration was in Nagpur.
ONGC v. Afcons By SC Will Not Affect Fee Already Fixed By Arbitration Tribunal : Delhi High Court
Case Title: NHAI v. IJM GAYATRI JV, OMP (COMM.) 235 of 2021
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 115
The Delhi High Court has held that the fees fixed by arbitral tribunal in accordance with judgment of its coordinate bench in Rail Vikas Nigam case cannot be held to be either against the public policy or the substantive law as existed on the said date.
It refused to stay the operation of an award that had directed the petitioner to pay the fees of arbitral tribunal in terms of the judgment in Rail Vikas.
The Supreme Court in ONGC v. Afcons held that maximum fees that an arbitrator can charge on a claim is Rs. 30 Lakhs.
The court was considering a situation wherein the fees was fixed in terms of the earlier law. The petitioner challenged the fees so fixed as violative of the Supreme Court order.
Title: BACHPAN BACHAO ANDOLAN v. GNCTD & ORS
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 116
The Delhi High Court has ordered that a committee be constituted in each district for inspection of the premises where units are employing child labourers, and called for a status report regarding the action taken.
A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad said that under the supervision of Chief Secretary of Delhi, the Deputy Commissioner of Police of each District in coordination with the Department of Labour, Women and Child Welfare Department, and the Municipal Corporation of Delhi are directed to form such committees.
Title: Ehtesham Qutubuddin Siddique v. Cpio, Ministry Of Home Affairs
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 117
The Delhi High Court observed that the reports and dossiers prepared by intelligence agencies cannot be disclosed under the Right to Information Act, 2005.
Justice Prathiba M Singh said that major public interest is in protecting safety and security of the country and not in disclosing such reports.
“Reports and dossiers by intelligence authorities, which are subject matter of investigation cannot be disclosed under RTI, especially if they compromise the sovereignty or integrity of the country,” the court said.
Title: NITYA NAND GAUTAM v. CENTRAL BEREAU OF INVESTIGATION
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 118
Observing that the right to travel is a valuable fundamental right, the Delhi High Court has said that pendency of an appeal when sentence has been suspended cannot be an “exceptional circumstance” under which such right can be curtailed.
Justice Jasmeet Singh allowed one Nitya Nand Gautam, a convict in a case registered under Prevention of Corruption Act, to travel to Dubai for one month to meet his daughter from February 15 to March 15.
Delhi High Court Upholds Use Of Rule Of Contra Proferentem By Arbitrator While Interpreting Contract
Case Title: Flowmore Ltd versus Skipper Ltd
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 119
The Delhi High Court has ruled that if the arbitrator uses a contract executed between the parties to determine a dispute, the clauses of the contract should, in principle, be construed contra proferentem, i.e., the clauses should be interpreted against the party that drafted it.
The bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh remarked that the rule of contra proferentem can be regarded as a ‘general canon’ of interpretation that exists independently of national legal systems.
Budgetary Support Under GST Regime Can’t Be Denied To An Eligible Unit: Delhi High Court
Case Title: M/s Special Cables Pvt Ltd versus Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 120
The Delhi High Court has directed the revenue authorities to grant budgetary support to a manufacturing unit under the “Scheme of Budgetary Support under Goods and Services Tax (GST) Regime”, available to ‘eligible units’ located in specified States. The Court took note that the petitioner was eligible for exemption from Central Excise Duty prior to 01.07.2017, i.e., before the introduction of the GST regime in India, and thus, in terms of the Scheme, it was entitled to avail budgetary support.
Case Title: ASHWINI KUMAR UPADHYAY v. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 121
The Delhi High Court refused to pass directions on a public interest litigation praying that Centre and Election Commission of India be directed to ascertain the feasibility of conducting elections to Lok Sabha and Legislative Assembly together in 2024.
“ We cannot do it. We are not lawmakers. We know our limitations. We ensure compliance of law. We can’t issue such mandamus,” a division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad said.
As Upadhyay said that the plea be treated as representation, the bench disposed of the same by directing ECI to consider the PIL as representation and decide it in accordance with law.
Case Title: LOUIS VUITTON MALLETIER vs CAPITAL GENERAL STORE & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 122
The Delhi High Court has directed a Sadar Bazar trader to pay rupees five lakhs to Louis Vuitton within four weeks or face civil prison for a week, after he was held guilty of contempt for violating a restraining order by continuing to sell counterfeit products of famous French luxury brand.
Justice C Hari Shankar observed that a counterfeiter abandons any right to equitable consideration by a court functioning within the confines of the rule of law, adding that he is “entitled to no sympathy” as he “practices, knowingly and with complete impunity, falsehood and deception.”
Case Title: HP Cotton Textile Mills Ltd versus Oriental Insurance Company Ltd
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 123
The Delhi High Court has ruled that appeal against the order of the High Court, passed under Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), is not maintainable under Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, since it is not one of the orders enumerated under Order XLIII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), from which an appeal would lie.
The bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Amit Mahajan observed that in view of the proviso to Section 13(1A), an appeal shall lie only from such orders that are specifically enumerated under Order XLIII of the CPC. The Court ruled that as per the law laid down by the Apex Court in Kandla Export Corporation & Ors. v. OCI Corporation & Ors. (2018), the scope of appeal under Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act is controlled by its proviso.
Sec 34 Petition Is Not Non-Est, Even If Award Is Not Filed In A Separate Folder: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Ambrosia Corner House Pvt Ltd versus Hangro S Foods
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 124
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the error committed by the petitioner/award debtor in not filing the documents, including the copy of the Arbitral Award challenged by it, in a separate e-folder, as prescribed in the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018, would not render the petition filed by it under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) as non-est.
The bench of Justice Navin Chawla remarked that a more liberal approach must be adopted by the Court while considering whether the filing should be treated as ‘non-est.’
Department Can’t Go Behind TRC Issued By The Other Tax Jurisdictions: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Blackstone Capital Partners (Singapore) VI FDI Three Pte. Ltd. Versus ACIT
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 125
The Delhi High Court has quashed the reassessment and held that the department cannot go behind the Tax Residency Certificate (TRC) issued by the other tax jurisdiction.
The division bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora has observed that the reason given for reopening the assessment, namely, to verify the nature and genuineness of the transactions of the assessee in the assessment year, was untenable in law as the return of income had been filed by the assessee within time with full particulars. The notice has been issued on borrowed satisfaction, which is impermissible in law.
Case Title: P v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 126
The Delhi High Court has observed that institutions cannot escape the liability for dragging on sensitive sexual harassment complaints under Prevention of Sexual Harassment at the Workplace Act and that management and authorities must behave in a responsible manner.
Observing that constitution of the Internal Complaint Committee (ICC) is of utmost importance in such cases, Justice Prathiba M Singh said:
“ Adjudication of complaints relating to sexual harassment need to be dealt with utmost care. The inquiry needs to be by a duly constituted ICC and the same needs to be complete in all aspects. Institutions cannot escape liability for dragging on these sensitive complaints.”
Title: SR. SEPHY v. CBI & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 127
Calling it a form of “inhuman treatment”, the Delhi High Court on Tuesday held that conducting virginity test on a female detainee or accused under investigation is unconstitutional and in violation of her right to dignity enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma held that virginity test is “sexist” and violates human right to dignity of a female accused if she is subjected to such a test while being in custody.
Title: AX v. GOOGLE LLC & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 128
The Delhi High Court asked the social media platforms, including WhatsApp and Google, to take down URLs or posts relating to a video, showing a judicial officer in a compromising position, if not already removed in terms of the interim restraining order passed earlier.
Justice Yashwant Varma disposed of a suit seeking permanent injunction to restrain the social media platforms from publishing or sharing the video in question. It is not known who filed the suit as the court has allowed a prayer to mask the identity of the plaintiff.
Title: RR Patil Foundation & Anr. v. Archaeological Survey of India & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 129
The Delhi High Court directed Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) to expeditiously consider the plea of an NGO in case it wishes to co-organize a cultural programme at Agra Fort on February 19 on the occasion of birth anniversary of Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj, with Maharashtra government.
Justice Prathiba M Singh was hearing a plea moved by Maharashtra based registered trust R.R. Patil Foundation along with Ajinkya Devgiri Pratishthan, challenging a communication of Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) dated December 23, 2022, denying permission to organize the event.
Title: SOCIAL JURIST, A CIVIL RIGHTS GROUP v. RAJIV GANDHI CANCER INSTITUTE AND RESEARCH CENTRE AND ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 130
The Rajiv Gandhi Cancer Hospital told Delhi High Court that it will provide free medical treatment to patients belonging to economically weaker section (EWS) to the extent of 10% in inpatient department (IPD) and 25% in out patient department (OPD) with effect from March 01.
A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad disposed of a public interest litigation moved by an NGO namely Social Jurist, against lack of free treatment facilities for poor patients in the hospital.
NSE Phone Tapping Case: Delhi High Court Grants Bail To Chitra Ramkrishna In Money Laundering Case
Title: CHITRA RAMKRISHNA v. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 131
The Delhi High Court granted bail to former NSE (National Stock Exchange) CEO Chitra Ramkrishna in a money laundering case related to the alleged illegal phone tapping of employees by National Stock Exchange (NSE).
Justice Jasmeet Singh said that prima facie, there are reasonable grounds to believe that Ramakrishna is not guilty of the offence and that she is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.
The court said that prima facie, no scheduled offences against her were established and thus, the provisions of PMLA cannot be attracted to the present case.
Title: Shahrukh Pathan v. State
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 132
The Delhi High Court asked Shahrukh Pathan, accused in 2020 Northeast Delhi riots cases, to move an application before trial court for advancing the hearing of his petition alleging that he was attacked and assaulted by jail officials.
Justice Amit Sharma, who was hearing a similar petition moved by Pathan, said that since a plea has already been moved before trial court, it would be appropriate if an application is moved seeking early hearing before the concerned court.
Case Title: Kidde India Ltd versus National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 133
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the limitation period within which a party is required to approach the court for seeking constitution of the arbitral tribunal, cannot be conflated with the limitation period for invoking the arbitration agreement. Thus, any delay by the party in taking further steps for constitution of an arbitral tribunal, will not render the party’s substantive claims as barred by limitation.
Title: NATASHA NARWAL & ANR v. STATE OF NCT DELHI & ANR
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 134
The Delhi High Court disposed of Natasha Narwal and Devangana Kalita's plea seeking various facilities of prisoners in Tihar jail. Narwal and Kalita are accused in the larger conspiracy case of the 2020 North-East riots.
Both Narwal and Kalita moved the plea in 2020 in wake of the restrictions imposed on account of COVID-19 pandemic, highlighting multiple issues faced by undertrials inside the prison. They were granted bail by High Court in June 2021, against which appeal is pending before the Supreme Court.
Delhi High Court Grants Bail To CA In Money Laundering Case Against Shakti Bhog
Case Title: Raman Bhuraria versus Directorate Of Enforcement
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 135
The Delhi High Court has granted bail to the Auditor of M/s Shakti Bhog Foods Ltd in the money laundering case filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) against the company. The ED had opposed the bail application, alleging that the company’s Internal Auditor Raman Bhuraria was the mastermind of the whole operation.
Observing that no satisfactory explanation has been given by the ED for the lack of documents that could directly point to Bhuraria as the “mastermind”, Justice Jasmeet Singh said that the only substantial evidence against him are the statements made by the employees of Shakti Bhog under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA), which too have been retracted.
Title: SONALI KARWASRA v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 136
The Delhi High Court directed the Delhi Government to ensure strict compliance of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 and subsequent amendments made in the enactment.
A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad also called for strict compliance of a standard operating procedure (SOP) issued by Ministry of Road Transport and Highways on December 17, 2018, in respect of validation of driving license, registration certificates and other transport related documents in electronic form.
In Camera Proceedings Can Be Allowed Under Section 151 CPC In Appropriate Cases: Delhi High Court
Title: TARU PURI v. ANMOL SHEIKH ALIAS MALAIKA & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 137
The Delhi High Court has observed that in-camera proceedings can be allowed to be held in appropriate cases under section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Justice Chandra Dhari Singh observed that merely because there is no express provision in CPC regarding in-camera proceedings does not mean that such proceedings cannot be allowed by court.
Delhi High Court Directs Trial Courts To Decide Cases Pending Against MPs, MLAs On Priority
Case Title : COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v UNION OF INDIA
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 138
The Delhi High Court directed trial courts in the national capital to decide pending cases against former and sitting lawmakers (MPs and MLAs) on priority.
A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad was hearing a suo motu case initiated by it in the year 2020 concerning expedited trial of cases against MPs and MLAs.
Title: AKASH versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 139
The Delhi High Court has granted bail to a 21-year-old in a case registered under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act after the prosecutrix, who was 17 years old on the date of commission of alleged offence, submitted that she is desirous of marrying him. The couple already have a child, who is now about 18 months old.
The petitioner was in custody for more than one year as on January 16 in the case registered in November 2021 under Sections 363, 366, 366A and 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of the POCSO Act.
Title: PO v. VP
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 140
The Delhi High Court has said that statements made by a lawyer during judicial proceedings are conferred with an “absolute privilege” and no action for defamation, slander or libel can lie against them for advancing the submissions.
Observing that such statements are “complete defence against any allegations of defamation”, Justice Mini Pushkarna said that justice system would be adversely affected “if lawyers were to be in fear of law themselves” for any submission or statement made by them during a hearing.
Delhi High Court Grants Interim Protection To OREO, Restrains Parle From Using 'FAB!O'
Case Title: Intercontinental Great Brands versus Parle Product Private Limited
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 141
While granting interim protection to 'OREO' in a suit filed by its owner Intercontinental Great Brands, the Delhi High Court has said that the brand names for biscuits and cookies, ending in 'IO' or 'EO' are rare in market and a customer of average intelligence is likely to presume an association between OREO cookies and Parle's 'FAB!O' biscuits.
Justice C Hari Shankar said names ending in 'O' or 'IO' are not common on biscuits and Parle has made concluding 'io' intonation in its 'Fab!O' mark identical to the concluding 'eo' intonation in 'Oreo' mark, by adding 'O' to its earlier 'Fab!' mark.
Case Title: Hinu Mahajan v. Union of India
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 142
The Delhi High Court has disposed of a public interest litigation seeking recovery of damages from persons who allegedly indulged in destruction of public and private properties during the protests against Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019.
A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad observed that once Claim Commissioner has already been appointed to consider grant of compensation and that FIRs have already been registered by Delhi police, no further orders are required to be passed in the matter.
Agreement To Explore Conciliation Before Arbitration, Only Directory In Nature: Delhi High Court
Case Title: M/s Oasis Projects Ltd versus Managing Director, National Highway and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd (NHIDCL)
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 143
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the agreement between the parties to explore conciliation before resorting to arbitration, is not mandatory in nature.
The Court took note that as per Section 77 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), in cases of urgency, arbitral proceedings can be initiated even when conciliation proceedings are pending for preserving the party’s rights.
Title: K. P. RAO v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS and other connected matters
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 144
The Delhi High Court has held that State and District Kabaddi Associations must comply with “age and tenure restrictions” imposed by National Sports Code for continue to be members of Amateur Kabaddi Federation of India (AKFI), failure of which may entail their disaffiliation.
Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva held that “age and tenure restrictions” on members of the Governing Body imposed by National Sports Code applies not only to AKFI but also to all its constituents at State and District level.
Title: SUNIL PODAR v. THE NATIONAL TRUST FOR WELFARE OF PERSON WITH AUTISM, CEREBRAL PALSY, MENTAL RETARDATION AND MULTIPLE DISABILITIES AND ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 145
The Delhi High Court has observed that a foreign national cannot claim a vested or constitutional right to be appointed as guardian of a person with disabilities.
A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Yashwant Varma was hearing a plea moved by a father whose adopted son has "severe mental retardation" with disability certified to be 90% disability.
He challenged the validity of Rule 17(1)(iii)(a) of National Trust for Welfare of Persons with Autism, Cerebral Palsy, Mental Retardation and Multiple Disabilities Rules, 2001 and Regulation 12(1)(i) of Board of Trust Regulations, 2012. The provisions allow only Indian citizens to be guardian of a person. The petitioner and his son are citizens of the USA but hold Overseas Citizenship of India cards.
Case Title: University of Delhi versus M/s Kalra Electricals
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 146
The Delhi High Court has ruled that information and clarification sought by the Arbitral Tribunal on matters and dispute arising under other contracts, which do not form a part of the arbitral reference, will not alone make them the subject of arbitral proceedings.
The bench of Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani remarked that the letter issued by the Arbitrator, seeking information and clarification as to whether payments were released to the claimant under other contracts, which were not inter-related with the contract under consideration, was neither a direction nor an order made by the Arbitrator, and it was merely an effort to seek clarification on certain matters.
Case Title: HDFC Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd versus Bindu Paswan & Anr
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 147
The Delhi High Court has set aside the award passed by a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) where it had refused to grant recovery rights to the Insurance Company against the driver/owner of a two-wheeler involved in an accident.
While rejecting the insurance company's argument that it is not liable to pay anything as the rider was not holding a valid licence to drive the two-wheeler, the MACT had said that a male person who is competent to drive a Light Motor Vehicle cannot be expected to be incompetent in driving a two-wheeler.
Delhi High Court Declares Hermes International’s ‘H’ Mark As Well-Known Trademark
Title: HERMES INTERNATIONAL & ANR. v. CRIMZON FASHION ACCESSORIES PRIVATE LIMITED
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 148
The Delhi High Court has declared the stylized mark - “H” - of Hermes International, a french luxury brand, as a well-known trademark within the meaning of section 2(1)(zg) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
Justice C Hari Shankar observed that the criteria mentioned under section 11 (6) and (7) of the Act was satisfied in the matter to justify declaration of the mark as a well-known trade mark.
Title: SANDEEP SINGH DESWAL v. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI)
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 149
The Delhi High Court has observed that mere suspicion of an accused not returning to India, when the liberty granted to travel abroad has never been misused on earlier occasions, cannot be a basis to deny permission to travel abroad.
Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar said that the issuance of a look out circular (LOC) is a coercive measure “aimed at ensuring that an accused appears before the investigating agency or a court of law.”
Case Title: DABUR INDIA LIMITED v. ASHOK KUMAR AND ORS and other connected matters
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 150
The Delhi High Court has directed the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology and Department of Telecommunications to take action in accordance with Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 against domain name registrars (DNRs) who are not complying with the Rules.
Justice Prathiba M Singh observed that stringent steps are required to be taken in order to “curb the menace of illegal domain name registrations” having marks and names of well-known business houses. The bench particularly called for action against those DNRs which have not appointed grievance officers or have failed to implement orders of courts and authorities in India.
Title: KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKEN INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS LLC v. THE REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 151
The Delhi High Court has said though American fast food restaurant chain Kentucky Fried Chicken (KFC) has no exclusive right on the word “Chicken”, the trademark registry can consider its application for registration of mark “Chicken Zinger” in Class 29.
Justice Sanjeev Narula was hearing an appeal moved by Kentucky Fried Chicken International Holdings challenging an order dated December 24, 2018, and Statement of Grounds of decision passed by Senior Examiner of Trademarks, refusing its application for registration of the mark “CHICKEN ZINGER.”
Title: ELSEVIER LTD. AND ORS. v. ALEXANDRA ELBAKYAN AND ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 152
The Delhi High Court has dismissed the application of Alexandra Elbakyan, founder of shadow library website Sci Hub, seeking rejection of plaint filed by publishing houses Elsevier, Wiley and American Chemical Society in a copyright infringement suit against her.
The suit has been filed by major publishing houses Elsevier, Wiley India, Wiley Periodicals and American Chemical Society against online repositories Sci-Hub and Libgen. The publishers have said the websites indulge in online piracy by making their literary work available to the public for free.
Title: DB v. RB
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 153
While upholding dissolution of a couple’s marriage on the ground of cruelty, the Delhi High Court has observed that repeated use of derogatory and humiliating words by the wife against husband and his family amounts to cruelty.
The court said every person is entitled to live with dignity and honour, and no one can be expected to live with constant abuse being hurled upon him.
Title: COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 154
The Delhi High Court has directed its Registrar General to deposit the amount paid by news organisations as fine for disclosing the Kathua rape victim's name, with the Victim Compensation Fund maintained by Jammu & Kashmir State Legal Services Authority for disbursement of the same to the victims or family of deceased victims of sexual violence.
The high court in 2018 had taken suo motu note of the media reportage of the rape case and noticed that the name of the victim was widely reported by the journalists. The manner in which the incident was reported in contrary to Section 23 of the POCSO Act as well as Section 228A, said the court in its latest order.
Delhi High Court Imposes One Rupee Cost On Litigant For Filing Frivolous Applications
Title: Milan Saini v. Kamal Kumar & Anr. and other connected matters
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 155
The Delhi High Court has imposed a symbolic fine of One Rupee on an applicant for filing frivolous applications to seek action against a petitioner and his Special Power of Attorney-holder for alleged perjury.
Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani said the allegations contained in the applications are so completely bereft of a factual basis or merit, no further judicial time or ink need be wasted on them.
Case Title: Ghanshyam Pandey versus Union of India & Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 156
The Delhi High Court has refused to quash a Look Out Circular (LOC) issued against the former CEO, Director and Auditor of Shilpi Cable Technologies, in connection with Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO)'s ongoing probe against the company for allegedly siphoning off money through its foreign entities.
Justice Prathiba M. Singh said that though LOCs impinge upon the individual’s right to travel, which is recognised as a fundamental right, the rights and interests of the investing public would also be a relevant consideration which cannot be ignored.
Case Title: Jindal Exports and Imports Pvt Ltd vs. Director General of Foreign Trade & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 157
The Delhi High Court has ruled that a notification issued under Section 5 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 (FTDR Act), which empowers the Central Government to formulate and announce the foreign trade policy, cannot be applied retrospectively by the Central Government.
The bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh held that once a notification issued under Section 5 of the FTDR Act is quashed by the Court, the same cannot be relied upon by the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) to refuse Advance Authorization to an importer seeking import of certain goods, on the ground that the importer was not a party to the said proceedings before the Court.
Case Title: VED YADAV v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 158
The Delhi High Court has issued a slew of guidelines for cases where an inmate or convict sustains work related injuries in prison, observing that there is no monitoring or remedial mechanism available to address such cases.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed that when there is no employee or employer relationship between prisoners and jail authorities, such inmates must be provided protection and remedies for work related injuries as the Constitutional vision does not permit any citizen to be left remediless for availing compensation for injuries even as a prisoner.
Case Title: Master Arnesh Shaw v. Union of India & Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 159
The Delhi High Court has directed Union of India to immediately release Rs. 5 crores to All India Institute Of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) to ensure that treatment of children with rare diseases, where it has already commenced, is not stopped due to lack of funds.
Justice Prathiba M Singh directed the fund to be released within two weeks and that its expenditure shall be maintained by AIIMS under direct supervision of the doctor heading its Rare Diseases Committee.
Case Title: Sunil Kumar Chandra versus M/s Spire Techpark Pvt Ltd
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 160
The Delhi High Court has reiterated that where there is any inconsistency between the two clauses of a same instrument/document, the former clause shall prevail over the latter one.
The bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh was dealing with the petitions filed under Section 11 and 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act).
Title: WINZO GAMES PRIVATE LIMITED v. GOOGLE LLC & ORS
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 161
The Delhi High Court has observed that the warning displayed by Google to users before they download WinZo's APK file is in the nature of disclaimer to caution them and does not result in trademark infringement of gaming platform.
Justice Amit Bansal observed that the reference to the name of the APK file or application “WinZO” in Google’s disclaimer is only for identifying the file being downloaded for purpose of warning.
The court dismissed an application moved by Winzo Games Private Limited seeking to restrain Google from displaying the warning "against" use of its gaming application “WinZO Games” on the Android Operating System.
Title: PARMINDER SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 162
Observing that India has taken huge strides in providing medical facilities with latest technologies and qualified professionals at accessible costs, the Delhi High Court has said that courts cannot take decision on procurement of instruments in hospitals as it is a matter of policy.
A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad dismissed a public interest litigation moved by one Parminder Singh seeking directions for ensuring availability of video laryngoscopes in the healthcare system to manage difficult intubation systems.
Title: JAI A. DEHADRAI AND ANR v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 163
The Delhi High Court has said that Delhi Government's decision to restrict the total number of visits by family members, relatives, friends and legal advisers with jail inmates to two times a week, keeping in view the number of undertrials and prisoners, cannot be said to be arbitrary.
A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad said that the decision has been taken after “careful consideration” of the facilities available in jails, availability of the staff and the number of undertrials.
Title: BHUPINDER SINGH & ANR. v. LT GOVERNOR OF DELHI & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 164
The Delhi High Court Monday dismissed a public interest litigation seeking direction for a “special audit” of Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management Committee and Guru Harkrishan Public School Society by Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG).
A division bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Saurabh Banerjee observed that the PIL is not maintainable as there is already an applicable law in place, Delhi Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1971, which provides a complete methodology and mechanism for carrying out an audit by Chartered Accountants after due nomination by the Committee under the enactment.
Case Title: Asad Mueed & Anr versus Hammad Ahmed & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 165
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the power of the Arbitral Tribunal to grant interim measures under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), is not inferior to the power of a court under Section 9.
The bench of Justice Yashwant Varma remarked that though Section 9(3) of the A&C Act is not an ouster clause, it still requires the court to consider whether its intervention is warranted after the Arbitral Tribunal has been constituted and is in seisin of the dispute.
Title: HARSHPAL SINGH SAWHNEY & ORS v. CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION & ORS
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 166
The Delhi High Court has directed the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) to conclude proceedings initiated against schools which are found in violation of its bye-laws within six months.
A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad disposed of a public interest litigation seeking CBSE enquiry into the transactions between education societies and franchise schools and also to inspect affairs of schools operated by Delhi Public School Society (DPSS).
Title: SARWAR RAZA v. OMBUDSMAN RBI & ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 167
The Delhi High Court has expressed concern over the computer generated e-mails sent by Citibank to its customers without the mention of contact details of officials under whose instructions they were generated and sent.
Observing that there ought to be some accountability of bank officials, Justice Prathiba M Singh sought response of the bank as to whether names of its officials along with their e-mail IDs can be inserted in the emails sent to customers.
Case Title: Delhi Waqf Board v. Union of India & Ors
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 168
The Delhi High Court Wednesday asked the Delhi Waqf Board to file a separate petition to challenge Central Government’s decision to “absolve” the board from all matters pertaining to 123 properties, which have been under dispute for a long time.
Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri refused to pass an urgent order in Delhi Waqf Board’s application moved in a pending petition filed last year against the action of Union of India to delist the 123 properties.
The court asked the Board to file a separate substantive petition to challenge the letter and listed the application with the pending petition for hearing on August 4, the date already fixed.
Title: PUNJAB KESARI PUBLISHING HOUSE PVT LTD & ANR vs AJIT SINGH BULAND & ORS
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 169
The Delhi High Court has restrained a freelance reporter from using 'Kesari TV' mark and related logo for providing news services in print or electronic mode till further orders. The court also ordered suspension of the domain name 'www.kesaritv.com'.
The order has been passed in a suit filed by the owners of Punjab Kesari newspaper who alleged that the defendant had got the domain name registered in his favour and concretised an internet presence under the name 'Kesari TV' with a logo deceptively similar to its unregistered mark for 'Punjab Kesari TV'.
Case Title: M/s. Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd & Anr. versus Shipra Estate Ltd
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 170
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the Arbitrator has no jurisdiction to set aside the sale notice issued by the secured creditor under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, seeking to enforce its “security interest”.
The bench of Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani remarked that the matter of a notice issued under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act is not arbitrable at all, and thus, the Arbitrator does not have the option to exercise any discretion under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) in relation to the said matter.
Case Title: D Narasimha Rao & Ors versus Revanta Multi State CGHS Ltd & Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 171
The Delhi High Court has held that the Central Registrar is not divested of its authority and jurisdiction to appoint an Arbitral Tribunal in terms of Section 84 (4) of the Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002 (MSCS Act), when a dispute pertaining to a multi-state cooperative society is sought to be referred to arbitration under Section 84 of the Act.
The bench of Justice Yashwant Varma remarked that as per the direction issued by the Central Government under the Notification dated 24th February, 2003, the Registrar of Co-operative Societies of States is contemporaneously empowered to refer matters to arbitration, however, the same does not denude the jurisdiction of the Central Registrar.
Law Interns To Wear White Shirt, Black Pants & Black Tie In Courts: Delhi High Court
Title: HARDIK KAPOOR v. BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA & ORS
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 172
The Delhi High Court has said that law interns can enter court complexes in the national capital by wearing a white shirt, black tie and black pants as prescribed by the Bar Council of Delhi (BCD).
Justice Prathiba M Singh also said that the advocates appearing before any courts, from city civil courts to the Supreme Court, would have to wear white bands along with the uniform prescribed for them.
Title: MALVIKA CHOUDHARY & ORS. v. BAR COUNCIL OF DELHI & ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 173
The Delhi High Court has observed that lawyers "being put to harassment and frustration" due to repeated complaints to Bar Council cannot be countenanced, unless some serious case of misconduct is made out.
Justice Prathiba M Singh directed the Bar Council of Delhi to place on record the details of all pending complaints against the advocates. The information sought includes the dates of filing of the complaints and first notices.
Title: COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. REHMAN AFTAB ALAM
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 174
Closing the contempt proceedings against a person, the Delhi High Court observed that the anxiety, which the man went through during the trial of the case filed by his former wife, does not justify the actions of casting aspersion on a judicial officer.
Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora accepted the unconditional apology tendered by him, with a warning to exercise restraint and refrain from casting any aspersion on the court in future.
Title: UNION OF INDIA & ANR. v. CR
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 175
The Delhi High Court has set aside an order passed by Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) which had granted relief to an Indian Foreign Service (IFS) officer charged for fraudulently obtaining a birth certificate from Uttar Pradesh and then applying for an Indian diplomatic passport for his child born through an arrangement of surrogacy with a Mongolian national.
A division bench of Justice V Kameswar Rao and Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta observed that the order of the Tribunal was unsustainable and liable to be set aside.
Title: Shyam Jaju & Anr. v. Saurabh Bhardwaj & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 176
The Delhi High Court on Friday directed Aam Aadmi Party leaders Saurabh Bhardwaj, Durgesh Pathak, Sanjay Singh and Dilip Kumar Pandey to remove the alleged defamatory material and allegations made on social media platforms against politician and former BJP National Vice-President Shyam Jaju and his son.
Justice Navin Chawla observed that prima facie case is made out in favour of Jaju and his son for grant of interim relief and directed AAP leaders to remove the material within two days.
High Court Restrains Delhi-Based Company From Selling Gas Stoves, Kitchenware Under 'Prestige' Mark
Case Title: TTK Prestige Ltd versus KK & Company Delhi Pvt Ltd & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 177
In a trademark suit filed by TTK Prestige Ltd, the Delhi High Court has restrained K. K. AND Company Delhi Private Limited from using the mark 'PRESTIGE' in relation to gas stoves or any kitchenware or cookware.
Noting that Prestige has been selling its products under the trademark since 1955, and the earliest registration of its mark dates back to 14th December, 1949, Justice Amit Bansal dismissed the contention that pressure cookers and gas stoves are different products and therefore there would be no confusion in the market.
Title: MOHD. MANAN DAR v. NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY and other connected matters
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 178
The Delhi High Court on Friday held that the report of Public Prosecutor is not required to be provided to the accused at the stage of grant of extension of remand for continued investigation under section 43D(2) of UAPA.
A division bench of Justice Mukta Gupta and Justice Anish Dayal however said that when the accused is produced to inform him about the extension of period of investigation based on Public Prosecutor’s report, “the accused cannot be a silent spectator” and the Special Court would be required to take into consideration, submissions on behalf of the accused, while examining the report regarding progress of investigation and the reasons for seeking further detention.
Case Title: Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd vs M/s Zillion Infraprojects Pvt Ltd
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 179
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the Arbitral Tribunal has the power under Section 31(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) to pass an interim Award on the basis of the admissions made by a party before the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) in the CIRP proceedings initiated under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) against the opposite party.
Case Title: Bolt Technology OU versus Ujoy Technology Private Limited & Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 180
The Delhi High Court has refused to grant interim injunction in favour of Bolt Technology OU in relation to use of the mark ‘Bolt’ in EV (electric vehicle) charging stations in India by Ujoy Technology Private Limited.
The court observed that since Bolt is not engaged in providing EV charging services anywhere in the world and has merely installed some EV charging stations in a handful of locations for charging its own vehicles, no trans-border reputation in providing EV charging services can be credited to it which can be said to have spilled over to India.
Title: DEVENDRA KUMAR & ORS. v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 181
The Delhi High Court has observed that places of worship cannot encroach public land and hinder developmental activities meant for the larger segment of the public.
Justice Prathiba M Singh made the observations while paving the way for demolition of portions of a Mandir and a Masjid situated at Jheel ka Piao in Delhi’s ITO area for making the pedestrian pathway uniform.
The court observed that the Public Works Department (PWD) has to be permitted to make the pedestrian pathway uniform so as to not cause inconvenience to pedestrians on the busy stretch of road which also has access to a Metro station.
Delhi High Court Stays MCD Mayor's Notice For Re-Election To Standing Committee
Title: KAMALJEET SEHRAWAT v. OFFICE OF LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR OF DELHI & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 182
In a special Saturday hearing, the Delhi High Court stayed the newly-elected Mayor Shelly Oberoi's notice for re-election of the six members of standing committee of Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD).
Justice Gaurang Kanth observed that prima facie the returning officer or Mayor is conducting re-elections without declaring the results of elections conducted on February 24 which is in violation of Regulation 51 of New Delhi Municipal Council (Procedure and Conduct of Business) Regulations, 1997.
“From a perusal of Regulation 51, it is nowhere reflected that the returning officer or mayor has the authority to declare an election of standing committee as null and void. It is not out of place to mention that admittedly, the counting of votes and further duty casted upon mayor as in declaring the result of elections held on February 24 shall culminate into final result,” the court said.
Case Title: Shapoorji Pallonji and Company Private Limited versus Union of India
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 183
The Delhi High Court has reiterated that when a person has itself become ineligible by operation of law to act as an arbitrator, it cannot nominate another person to act as arbitrator.
The bench of Justice Yashwant Varma was dealing with an arbitration clause which exclusively empowered the Chief Project Manager to appoint the arbitrator from a panel which was itself maintained by it.
Title: HARSH AJAY SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS and other connected matters
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 184
Upholding the Union Government's Agnipath scheme for the armed forces, the Delhi High Court on Monday said it can conclusively state that the scheme was made in national interest to ensure that armed forces are better equipped.
Referring to the skirmishes on the borders, the division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad said that such transgressions exacerbate the need to have a leaner and fitter Armed Force which is capable of handling the mental and physical distress that accompanies service in the Armed Forces.
Case Title: New Delhi Municipal Council versus Decor India Pvt Ltd
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 185
The Delhi High Court has reiterated that though it is permissible to introduce an amendment in a petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), however, new grounds of challenge containing new material/ facts cannot be introduced when the said grounds were neither raised in the original petition under Section 34 nor before the Arbitral Tribunal.
Case Title: Tejpal Singh versus Surinder Kumar Dewan
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 186
The Delhi High Court has ruled that since the party had failed to challenge the termination of the Collaboration Agreement in the first round of arbitral proceedings, the demolition of the structure built by it under the said Collaboration Agreement would not give it a fresh cause of action.
The bench of Justice Navin Chawla remarked that the cause of action for challenging the termination of the Collaboration Agreement and/or for claiming any relief under the said Collaboration Agreement, was available to the petitioner at the stage of the earlier arbitral proceedings.