Citations 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1 to 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 102 NOMINAL INDEX GIRISH & ORS v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1 BHAVIKAA KESHWANI & ANR. (THROUGH THEIR LEGAL GUARDIANS) v. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 2 AKSHAY DHINGRA v. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 3 ARJUN ANAND v. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ORS....
Citations 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1 to 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 102
NOMINAL INDEX
GIRISH & ORS v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1
BHAVIKAA KESHWANI & ANR. (THROUGH THEIR LEGAL GUARDIANS) v. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 2
AKSHAY DHINGRA v. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 3
ARJUN ANAND v. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 4
Sanghvi Movers Ltd. versus Vivid Solaire Energy Pvt. Ltd. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 5
ARMASUISSE v. THE TRADE MARK REGISTRY & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 6
Ram Sarup Lugani & Anr. versus Nirmal Lugani & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 7
Sameer Wankhede v. UOI & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 8
M/s Fermina Developers Private Limited versus Indiabulls Housing Finance Limited 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 9
Kamlesh v. State 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 10
NEERAJ BHATT v. THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT) OF DELHI 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 11
MR. SAAD AHMED SIDDIQUI (IN J.C.) & ORS. v. THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 12
Raj Kumar Gupta versus M/ S Narang Constructions & Financiers Pvt Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 13
Govind Singh v. Satya Group Pvt. Ltd, FAO (COMM) 136 of 2022 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 14
SUNIL v. STATE 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 15
Pratima Devi (Dog Amma) v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 16
VIRENDRA KUMAR v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 17
DABUR INDIA LIMITED v. THE ADVERTISING STANDARDS COUNCIL OF INDIA 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 18
Apollo Tyres Limited versus Pioneer Trading Corporation & Ors 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 19
CA NITESH PARASHAR v. INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF INDIA ICAI & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 20
Dr. Shilpi Agarwal & Anr. versus UOI & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 21
Mahendra Kumar Verma versus Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 22
ACTION COMMITTEE UNAIDED RECOGNIZED PRIVATE SCHOOLS v. DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 23
ASSOCIATION FOR DEMOCRATIC REFORMS & ANR v. UNION OF INDIA 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 24
VP v. THE STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 25
Sandeep v. UOI & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 26
M/s Diamond Entertainment Technologies Private Limited & Ors. versus Religare Finvest Limited 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 27
MANISH KUMAR v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 28
PAWAN KUMAR AND ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 29
Machine Tools Aids India versus M/s. GNC Infra LLP & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 30
Sushil Ansal v. ENDEMOL INDIA PVT. LTD. & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 31
Oil and Natural Gas Corporation versus Joint Venture Of M/s Sai Rama Engineering Enterprises (SREE) & M/s Megha Engineering & Infrastructure Limited (MEIL) 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 32
Communication Components Antenna Inc. versus Ace Technologies Corp. and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 33
M/s Liberty Footwear Company versus M/s Liberty International 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 34
EHRAZ ZAFAR v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 35
MONK ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR. v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 36
Capital Food Private Limited versus Radiant Indus Chem Pvt. Ltd. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 37
Anil Kumar Singh & Anr. versus Union of India 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 38
DR. U.S. AWASTHI v. ADJUDICATING AUTHORITY PMLA & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 39
IKRA KHAN v. JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 40
SMT KAMESHWARI DEVI & ANR. v. THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) AND ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 41
RAJO v. DELHI BUILDING AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION WORKERS BOARD & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 42
Bright Simons versus Sproxil Inc & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 43
SANJEEV KUMAR TIWARI v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS2023 LiveLaw (Del) 44
SUBWAY IP LLC v. INFINITY FOOD & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 45
Kuldeep Singh Sengar v. CBI 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 46
M/S JAI SINGH AND CO versus NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 47
AKSHAT BALDWA & ORS. v. YASH RAJ FILMS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 48
EMTA COAL LIMITED & ORS. v. DEPUTY DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 49
JAGJIT PAL SINGH VIRK v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 50
Tata Steel BSL Limited v Venus Recruiter Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 51
Anubhav Jain versus Satish Kumar Jain & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 52
ARUSHI MEHRA & ANR. v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 53
Ashwani Kumar Sharma & Ors. versus Union of India 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 54
SN versus IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 55
RABINDRA TIWARY v. LT. GOVERNOR, GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 56
MCD v. Lokpal of India 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 57
COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION V. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE AND ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 58
Bhushan Oil and Fats Pvt Ltd versus Mother Dairy Fruit and Vegetables Pvt Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 59
Union of India & Anr. versus Alcon Builders and Engineer Pvt. Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 60
PSV v. THE INDIAN SCHOOL & ANR 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 61
X v. STATE 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 62
DUKHTARAN-E-MILLAT v. UNION OF INDIA 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 63
Amanatullah Khan v. State 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 64
Pawan Hans Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Trade and Taxes 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 65
SURJEET KUMAR v. STATE 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 66
Sneh Aggarwal versus Punjab National Bank 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 67
RAHUL MEHRA v. UNION OF INDIA 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 68
KRBL LIMITED vs VIKRAM ROLLER FLOUR MILLS LIMITED 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 69
SACHIN & ORS. v. CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 70
UNION OF INDIA v. KOLLI UDAY KUMARI 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 71
V K KANJLIA v. STATE NCT OF DELHI 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 72
Monika Oli versus M/s CL Educate Ltd. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 73
Raghav Bahl v. ED 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 74
N v. Principal Secretary Health and Family Department GNCTD & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 75
ISHA v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 76
RS v. STATE OF NCT DELHI AND ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 77
Ram Prakash Chauhan Versus Commissioner of Delhi (GST) 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 78
M/S PRAKASH INDUSTRIES LIMITED v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 79
VIRENDER SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. and other connected matters 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 80
RITA SEHGAL & ORS v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 81
Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (Hqrs.) versus M/s Spraytec India Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 82
Arvind Goyal CA Versus UOI 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 83
Chabbras Associates v. HSCC India Limited 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 84
MINOR R THR MOTHER H v. STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 85
M/s Shyamjee Prepaid Services versus M/s Top Steels & Mrs. Renu Devi & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 86
NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 87
MADHUR MITTAL v. UNION OF INDIA 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 88
Hindustan Zinc Ltd v. National Research Development Corporation 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 89
Yashdeep Chahal v. UOI & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 90
NEHA KAPOOR & ANR v. MINISTRY OF INFORMATION AND BROADCASTING & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 91
Blackstone Capital Partner Versus ACIT 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 92
Delhi State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation v. Sukumar Chand Jain 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 93
X v. GNCTD 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 94
Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax versus M/s Steel Authority of India Ltd. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 95
CPIO, CENTRAL ECONOMIC INTELLIGENCE BUREAU v. G.S. SRINIVASAN 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 96
RAVINDER LAL AIRI v. S.SHALU CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD AND ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 97
SANDISK LLC & ANR versus LAXMI MOBILES & ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 98
Al Sudais Haj and Umrah Service v. Union of India & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 99
WAZIRPUR BARTAN NIRMATA SANGH (THROUGH ITS SECRETARY) & ORS v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 100
Charu Chains & Jewels (P) Ltd. Versus ACIT 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 101
SMT. BENI v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT DELHI AND ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 102
Judgments/Orders
Title: GIRISH & ORS v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1
The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi Government to ensure free food and medical treatment to HIV positive persons, who are below the poverty line and are unable to afford the same in the national capital.
A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad also directed the Delhi government to ensure strict compliance of Human Immunodeficiency Virus and Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (Prevention & Control) Act 2017 and the Rules made thereunder.
The court passed the direction while disposing of a public interest litigation filed in 2011 by various individuals, who were suffering from HIV AIDS and multiple disabilities, for housing and other facilities for their well being, including hot cooked meals.
Delhi University Admissions: High Court Junks Plea Challenging Seat Allocation Policy For CUET, 2022
Title: BHAVIKAA KESHWANI & ANR. (THROUGH THEIR LEGAL GUARDIANS) v. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 2
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a plea challenging Delhi University’s policy for seat allocation in admissions to various undergraduate courses in its colleges through Common University Entrance Test, 2022.
A vacation bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru said the challenge is unsubstantial, and that there is no plausible reason to hold that the Common Seat Allocation System (CSAS) is arbitrary, unreasonable and falling foul of Articles 14 or 21 of the Constitution of India.
The court was hearing a plea moved by two candidates, who apart from challenging the CSAS, also sought permission to change their course or seat mutually.
Title: AKSHAY DHINGRA v. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI)
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 3
The Delhi High Court has observed that the law does not permit a husband to take away the wife's household articles including jewellery without her consent and knowledge.
Observing that no person can be allowed to take law in his own hands with an excuse that the parties are litigating, Justice Amit Mahajan observed:
“Only because a complaint of wife in relation to istridhan is pending, does not mean that the husband can be allowed to surreptitiously throw the wife out of the matrimonial house and take away the articles.”
The court made the observation while denying pre-arrest bail to a man in a complaint lodged by his wife alleging that her household articles were stolen while she was away from the house. The FIR was registered under Section 380 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Title: ARJUN ANAND v. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 4
The Delhi High Court has refused to grant any interim relief to a third year law student, who was debarred from appearing in V-semester examinations by Campus Law Centre, Delhi University.
"The father of the Petitioner, who is present during the hearing, has expressed his dismay and urges the Court to take a lenient view considering the fact that the decision of the University would prolong Petitioner’s course and result in wastage of six precious months. The Court, however, remains unconvinced as the Petitioner has attended classes sporadically throughout the semester, and the minimum attendance criteria is a requirement which cannot be glossed over," said the court.
A vacation bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula issued notice on the law student’s plea seeking deletion of his name from the detention lists dated December 30 and 31, 2022 and permission to appear in the V semester examination commencing from January 3 to 14, 2023.
Case Title: Sanghvi Movers Ltd. versus Vivid Solaire Energy Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 5
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the parties would be governed by the arbitration clause contained in the Contract, even though the arbitration clause is not specifically incorporated in the purchase orders.
The bench of Justice Mini Pushkarna held that the purchase order was not independent of the Contract and that the parties clearly intended the Contract to be the main agreement. Thus, the Court concluded that the parties would be governed by the arbitration clause contained in the Contract, even though an arbitration clause was not specifically incorporated in the purchase order.
Title: ARMASUISSE v. THE TRADE MARK REGISTRY & ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 6
Ruling in favour of Armasuisse, which is a federal agency of Switzerland, the Delhi High Court has declared various marks under the name “Swiss Military” ineligible for trademark registration.
Justice C Hari Shankar allowed the appeals moved by Armasuisse, which represents the military wing of the Swiss Government, and set aside the orders passed by Deputy Registrar of Trademarks permitting trademark registration in favour of a private entity, Promoshirt, for the impugned marks in respect of clothing and textile.
“…it cannot be held that the use of the white cross on a red background, or the "SWISS MILITARY" logo below it, serves in trade to designate the geographical origin of the goods as being Switzerland. The possibility of such a mark confusing or deceiving the public into believing that the goods are of Swiss origin when, in fact, they are not, may fatally imperil the entitlement of the mark to registration in view of Section 9(1)(a) of the Trade Marks Act; Section 9(1)(b) would not, however, stand attracted on that ground," the court observed.
Case Title: Ram Sarup Lugani & Anr. versus Nirmal Lugani & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 7
The Delhi High Court has ruled that courts can permit a person to join an application seeking leave to institute a suit against a Trust under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure as at that stage the suit is yet to be instituted.
Dealing with a case wherein one of the two plaintiffs died even before the court had granted the leave to file a suit, and therefore a prayer was made seeking impleadment of two more persons as co-plaintiffs, Justice Yashwant Varma said court does not lack the power to permit persons to join an application seeking leave to sue a Trust.
It further said no provision of the Code, either expressly or impliedly, prohibits persons from joining an application for leave to sue. All that Section 92 mandates is that the application seeking leave must be made by at least two persons, the court observed.
Title: Sameer Wankhede v. UOI & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 8
The Delhi High Court refused to entertain a plea moved by former Mumbai zonal director of Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) Sameer Wankhede seeking protection in a case accusing him of owning disproportionate assets.
Wankhede had sought a direction that he must be given time to submit relevant documentary evidence before any action in terms of search or seizure is initiated against him.
Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani refused to entertain the plea after opining that Wankhede had failed to produce relevant material on record so as to enable the court to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 and also in view of lack of territorial jurisdiction.
Case Title: M/s Fermina Developers Private Limited versus Indiabulls Housing Finance Limited
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 9
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the provisions of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (RDB Act) or the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) do not lay down an omnibus bar to arbitration. In each case, the Court would have to consider the nature of the dispute and determine whether the said statutes require the dispute to be tried exclusively by the Debt Recovery Tribunals (DRTs), the Court held.
The bench of Justice Yashwant Varma noted that the dispute between the parties, relating to whether the petitioner/debtor had made a default in repaying the loan, empowering the respondent/creditor to proceed under Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act, involved the determination of debt. Thus, the dispute fell within the scope of adjudication contemplated under Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act and it cannot be referred to arbitration, the Court said.
Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act provides a procedure for seeking enforcement of security interest by a secured creditor, if a default is made by the debtor.
Case Title: Kamlesh v. State
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 10
Upholding life imprisonment of an accused convicted for committing rape upon a 2 year old minor girl, the Delhi High Court has ruled that MLC (medico-legal case) report can be relied upon by the courts even when the doctor who prepared it is not examined and the record is proved by any other doctor of the hospital.
The division bench of Justice Siddharth Mridul and Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar said that proving of MLC report by a colleague doctor or an administrative staff of the hospital, who identify handwriting and signatures of the doctor who had examined the patient, is sufficient and good proof. It added that such a report cannot be doubted.
Delhi High Court Grants Four Weeks Parole To POCSO Convict For Filing SLP In Supreme Court
Title: NEERAJ BHATT v. THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT) OF DELHI
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 11
The Delhi High Court has granted parole of four weeks to a man convicted under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act to enable him file a special leave petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court. His conviction was upheld by the high court on July 04 last year.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma granted relief to Neeraj Bhatt who was convicted under Sections 363 and 376(2) of Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Section 6 of POCSO Act in December 2019 by a Special POCSO court. He was sentenced to a rigorous imprisonment of 10 years and is presently confined in the city’s Mandoli jail.
Title: MR. SAAD AHMED SIDDIQUI (IN J.C.) & ORS. v. THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI)
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 12
The Delhi High Court has advised trial court judges to pay “special attention” and “show sensitivity” in cases where accused persons are languishing in jails as undertrials and also where they may be rendered remediless.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed that although criminal courts are duty bound to consider rights of the victim, they cannot overlook or brush aside the rights of an accused or a convict.
“A person who gets convicted has a statutory right to challenge the conviction in a higher court as well as seek suspension of sentence. However, such statutory right can only be exercised once the order on sentence is also pronounced by the Court concerned, as sentence is a part of the judgment in a trial,” the court said.
Case Title: Raj Kumar Gupta versus M/ S Narang Constructions & Financiers Pvt Ltd
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 13
The Delhi High Court has ruled that non-attestation of the affidavit accompanying the application filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) is a mere procedural irregularity. Thus, it cannot be treated as fatal to the institution of the suit, the bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna concluded. The Court held that the application cannot be considered as non-est for the purpose of computing limitation under Section 34 (3).
The petitioner- Raj Kumar Gupta, filed an application under Section 34 of the A&C Act before the Delhi High Court, challenging the arbitral award rendered against it. After certain objections were raised by the Registry to the petition filed by the petitioner, the petition was refiled after a delay of 57 days beyond the limitation period of three months and 30 days, as provided under Section 34(3).
Case Title: Govind Singh v. Satya Group Pvt. Ltd, FAO (COMM) 136 of 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 14
The Delhi High Court has held that mere participation in the arbitration proceedings cannot be considered to be waiver of Section 12(5) that provides for ineligibility of arbitrator.
The bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Amit Mahajan held that applicability of Section 12(5) can only be waived off by an express agreement and not by the conduct of parties. The Court held that the objection to challenge an arbitration award on the ground of ineligibility of arbitrator due to his unilateral appointment can be raised regardless of no such objection being taken before the arbitrator.
Title: SUNIL v. STATE
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 15
Calling it a classic case where canons of justice were kept aside by trial court as the accused wasn't provided any effective legal aid, the Delhi High Court has acquitted a man in a case of preparation for committing dacoity.
"Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court’s judicial conscience does not permit to now remand back the matter and direct the learned Trial Court to again conduct a fresh trial. In view thereof, the accused is acquitted of all the charges since the trial in itself was vitiated due to non-assistance of accused by legal aid counsel, besides existence of several inconsistencies and lacunae in the case of prosecution before the learned Trial Court," said the court.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma in the ruling observed that the judiciary has a crucial role to play in ensuring enforcement of human rights and has to meet the “great challenge” towards making justice accessible in practical terms to the poor.
Title: Pratima Devi (Dog Amma) v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 16
The Delhi High Court ordered status quo on the action of Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) of demolishing a temporary makeshift shelter of an 80 years old woman, housing over 200 displaced stray dogs for over 30 years.
Pratima Devi, an octogenarian popularly known as “Dog Amma”, moved court seeking immediate alternate shelter after the demolition happened on January 3, leaving the elderly woman and stray dogs shelterless.
Title: VIRENDRA KUMAR v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 17
The Delhi High Court has upheld the constitutional validity of Section 92 (i) of the Air Force Act, 1950 which allows deduction from the pay and allowance of Air Force personnel for maintenance of the wife and their children.
A division bench of Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar also upheld an office order issued by Air Force on February 6, 2013 providing the procedure for grant, modification or cessation of maintenance allowance to the wife and the children of such personnel.
Title: DABUR INDIA LIMITED v. THE ADVERTISING STANDARDS COUNCIL OF INDIA
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 18
The Delhi High Court observed that the advertisement industry thrives on creativity and freedom of expression and would loathe a government dictated regulation, adding that not many industries enjoy a self- regulated regime.
Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri made the observation while dismissing a plea filed by Dabur India seeking to restrain the Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI) from creating impediments in the broadcast of its advertisement regarding the health nutrition drink ‘Vita’.
Case Title: Apollo Tyres Limited versus Pioneer Trading Corporation & Ors
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 19
In a case relating the alleged copying of the tread pattern of tyres, the Delhi High Court has ruled that registration of a tread pattern, which is nearly identical to the suit pattern, as a design would not ipso facto operate to disentitle it from being regarded as a “trade mark” within the meaning of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
"At the highest, the matter would be one of trial, in which it would have to be examined whether the tread pattern which was registered as a design was identical or nearly identical to the suit pattern," Justice C. Hari Shankar said in an order.
The court was dealing with the argument that whether Apollo Tyres Limited, which has filed a suit against Pioneer Trading Corporation accusing it of violating a 2018 settlement agreement, deserves to be non-suited on the ground that it had applied for registration of the suit pattern as a design under Section 5 of the Designs Act.
Title: CA NITESH PARASHAR v. INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF INDIA ICAI & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 20
Expressing a prima facie view, the Delhi High Court has observed that the complaint of sexual harassment and inquiry proceeding cannot be quashed merely because internal complaints committee (ICC) failed to complete inquiry within the time-frame of 90 days mentioned under section 11(4) of Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013.
“Needless to say, that such complaints containing allegations of sexual harassment deserves to be treated with a certain amount of seriousness and responsibility and accordingly, the same have to be inquired into and taken to their logical conclusion for it is both in the interest of the complainant as well as the person against whom the allegations of sexual harassment have been levelled,” Justice Vikas Mahajan said.
Observing that section 11(4) of the Act cannot be said to be mandatory, the court referred to the decision of Tripura High Court in Vinay Kumar Rai v. Union of India and Ors. wherein it was observed that the time limit provided under the provision cannot be seen as a terminal point beyond which the inquiry cannot be continued.
Case Title: Dr. Shilpi Agarwal & Anr. versus UOI & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 21
The Delhi High Court has said that promotion under the Dynamic Assured Career Progression (DACP) Scheme of Central Health Services cannot be made in a mechanical manner without considering the employee’s grading in the Annual Confidential Report (ACR).
The division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad said there can be no upgradation of post solely on basis of the number of years of service completed by the employee, de hors the Recruitment Rules and other provisions governing promotion in services.
The court passed the judgement on a petition challenging a decision passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. The petitioners are members of the Central Health Services, who upon their selection by the Union Public Services Commission (UPSC) were appointed in the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare in the Grade of Assistant Professor (Teaching Sub-Cadre), in the Department of Pathology, Lady Hardinge Medical College. They were promoted to the Post of Associate Professor in 2001 and 2002.
Case Title: Mahendra Kumar Verma versus Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 22
The Delhi High Court has ruled that reimbursement of medical expenses under Central Government (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1944 cannot be denied on the ground that the hospital charged an amount in excess of the approved rates, in a case where the patient is referred to such hospital.
Expressing dismay at how a petition seeking reimbursement of only Rs 51, 824 remained pending for past 16 years and was vehemently contested by Delhi government, Justice Chandra Dhari Singh said the beneficiary employee cannot faulted or penalised to pay the excess amount that was charged from him by the Rajiv Gandhi Cancer Institute, when he in the first instance did not even choose the hospital but was referred there.
Title: ACTION COMMITTEE UNAIDED RECOGNIZED PRIVATE SCHOOLS v. DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 23
The Delhi High Court has ordered that no coercive steps be taken against private unaided schools if the qualifications of their Managers are not in accordance with the circulars issued by Delhi Government’s Directorate of Education (DoE) on November 24, 2004 and November 17, 2022.
Justice Prathiba M Singh in the interim order said that any action may impact lakhs of students in the schools, while listing the matter for hearing on May 18.
The court said in so far as schools, whose schemes of management were approved prior to 2004, are concerned and no further approval is being sought by them in respect of the schemes of management, the Managers who are already functioning or who are appointed by these schools shall not be disturbed.
Title: ASSOCIATION FOR DEMOCRATIC REFORMS & ANR v. UNION OF INDIA
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 24
The Delhi High Court dismissed a public interest litigation seeking constitution of an independent and "politically neutral body" for implementation of Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act to avoid misuse of law by the executive.
A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad pronounced the decision. The plea was moved by the Association for Democratic Reforms and Dr. E.A.S. Sarma, former Secretary to the Government of India in 2015.
Observing that the power to set up a committee or tribunal is purely a policy decision, the court said the mere possibility that a statute will not be administered adequately is not a ground for the statute to be invalidated or for the court to supplement its wisdom with the legislature’s.
Title: VP v. THE STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 25
The Delhi High Court has observed that there is no bar to file anticipatory bail under section 438 (4) of CrPC in an FIR registered under section 376(3) of Indian Penal Code, 1860 when the alleged incident happened prior to introduction of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2018.
Justice Jasmeet Singh made the observation while denying anticipatory bail to a father accused of raping her minor daughter when she was 15 years of age. While the alleged incident happened in the year 2017, the FIR was filed last year.
Title: Sandeep v. UOI & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 26
Delhi High Court told the Bar Council of India (BCI) to consider combining other subjects with the law courses to increase diversity of knowledge in the legal field.
“You could consider giving combination courses like biology with law, physics or chemistry with law. Those courses are not there in India. How will you have people who will be well qualified to deal with challenging issues which courts are facing now?” Justice Prathiba M Singh told Advocate Preet Pal Singh, who was appearing for BCI.
Asking the BCI to revisit its present structure of offering 3 years and 5 years of LLB programmes and offer more combination courses, the court said that it is important to have law courses with other subjects included so that people with more diverse backgrounds can be legal professionals.
Court Has No Jurisdiction To Review Order Passed Under Section 11 of A&C Act: Delhi High Court
Case Title: M/s Diamond Entertainment Technologies Private Limited & Ors. versus Religare Finvest Limited
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 27
The Delhi High Court has reiterated that orders passed in an application filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C) cannot be reviewed since there is no provision of review contained in the A&C Act.
The bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, while dismissing a review petition filed against the arbitral reference made under Section 11, held that in view of the decision of Apex Court in M.D. Frozen Foods Exports Pvt Ltd versus Hero Fincorp Ltd. (2017), disputes covered under the SARFAESI Act in respect of which proceedings under the SARFAESI Act are initiated, can be referred to arbitration.
Title: MANISH KUMAR v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 28
The Delhi Government has informed the High Court that the Police Commissioner is personally monitoring the registration of FIRs regarding misbehaviour and harassment of women in the national capital.
A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad was also informed by the government that whenever any instance of misbehaviour on woman is brought to the notice of the Delhi Police, FIR is registered promptly in the matter.
The court disposed of a public interest litigation seeking direction for ensuring that all DTC buses and other public transport buses in the national capital are installed with CCTV cameras and other security features.
Title: PAWAN KUMAR AND ORS
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 29
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the benefit of Old Pension Scheme (OPS) in accordance with CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 shall be applicable for all the personnel of Central Armed Police Forces and directed the Centre to issue necessary orders within eight weeks.
The division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, in its decision on a batch of 82 petitions seeking quashing of orders denying the benefit of OPS to personnel of CRPF, BSF, CISF and ITBP, said the notification dated 22.12.2003 as well as OM dated 17.02.2020 granting the benefit of Old Pension Scheme "shall be applicable in rem."
The court said Notification dated 22.12.2003 for New Contributory Pension Scheme (NPS) shows that in Para (i) it has been categorically mentioned that 'the system would be mandatory for all new recruits to the central Government service from 1st of January 2004 (except the armed forces in the first stage)'.
Case Title: Machine Tools Aids India versus M/s. GNC Infra LLP & Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 30
The Delhi High Court has directed the civil courts to incorporate the endorsement that “defendant should file his written statement of defence within 30 days from the date of service/receipt of summons” while issuing summons to the defendant in a commercial suit.
“The Registrar of this Court is directed to transmit copies of this order to the learned District & Sessions Judge (HQ) as well as District & Sessions Judge of all other districts in order to pass necessary orders to make the endorsement as stipulated in Para 35 of this judgment a mandatory part of the summons to be issued under Order V Rule 5 CPC, 1908 in cases pertaining to Commercial Suits as a necessary requirement," Justice Tushar Rao Gedela said.
Title: Sushil Ansal v. ENDEMOL INDIA PVT. LTD. & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 31
The Delhi High Court rejected a plea moved by real estate baron Sushil Ansal seeking an ad interim stay on the release of upcoming Netflix series ‘Trial By Fire' which is based on the Uphaar fire tragedy. The series is scheduled to be released on January 13.
Justice Yashwant Varma refused to grant interim relief to Ansal in his suit which seeks permanent and mandatory injunction against the series and a restraint of further publication and circulation of the book titled ‘Trial By Fire- The tragic tale of the Uphaar Tragedy’.
The book has been authored by Neelam Krishnamoorthy and Shekhar Krishnamoorthy, who lost their two minor children in the 1997 fire incident. Neelam is also chairperson of the Association of the Victims of Uphaar Tragedy, which has led a long struggle in the case against Sushil Ansal and his brother Gopal Ansal.
Case Title: Oil and Natural Gas Corporation versus Joint Venture Of M/s Sai Rama Engineering Enterprises (SREE) & M/s Megha Engineering & Infrastructure Limited (MEIL)
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 32
The Delhi High Court has ruled that an application to set aside an arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) does not cease to be an application merely because the applicant has not complied with certain procedural requirements.
The bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav held that filing an affidavit in support of an application and the statement of truth by way of an affidavit, are procedural requirements. In absence of these requirements, the application cannot be treated as non est, the Court said.
Is Order XXV Rule 1(1) CPC Mandatory? Delhi High Court Larger Bench To Decide
Case Title: Communication Components Antenna Inc. versus Ace Technologies Corp. and Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 33
The Delhi High Court has referred the issue relating to the interpretation of Order XXV Rule 1(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) to a larger bench.
Observing that appears to be a "clear inconsistency" in the views expressed by different coordinate benches of the high court on whether the proviso to Order XXV Rule 1(1) of CPC is mandatory in nature or whether the court has a discretion while deciding an application under Order XXV Rule 1(1), the court said “as a matter of judicial propriety, the present matter may be referred to a larger Bench of this Court, so that an authoritative judgment may be passed by the Court on the interpretation of Order XXV Rule 1(1) of the CPC”.
Case Title: M/s Liberty Footwear Company versus M/s Liberty International
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 34
The Delhi High Court has reiterated that disputes relating to subordinate rights in personam arising from rights in rem are arbitrable. Thus, the bench of Justice Navin Chawla concluded that the dispute whether a partner can use the partnership firm’s trade mark for his own sole proprietorship concern, can be referred to arbitration.
The Court further ruled that merely because a Statute specifies which Civil Court is to adjudicate a dispute, is not enough to infer the implicit non-arbitrability of such dispute.
Title: EHRAZ ZAFAR v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 35
The Delhi High Court refused to entertain a public interest litigation alleging gender discrimination by the Delhi Government in promotion of Vice Principals to the post of Principals in government-aided schools.
A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad said that in case any female Vice Principal is ignored of promotion on the basis of gender bias, such an individual is certainly at the liberty to file appropriate legal proceedings.
After making some submissions, the plea was withdrawn from court.
Title: MONK ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR. v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 36
The Delhi High Court has summoned Delhi Government’s Inspector General of Registration after expressing concern that a large volume of land and property records went missing from a Sub-Registrar office.
Justice Prathiba M Singh also directed the Principal Secretary, Revenue of the Delhi Government to join the court proceedings on February 8, the next date of hearing.
The court observed that the function of the Sub-Registrars is for registering various documents relating to assets of the citizens and the same cannot be treated in a “cavalier and negligent manner.”
Case Title: Capital Food Private Limited versus Radiant Indus Chem Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 37
Refusing to grant an interim injunction in favour of Capital Foods against use of the mark ‘Schezwan Chutney’ by Radiant Indus Chem for its products, the Delhi High Court has said that the mark is a descriptive term.
Justice Navin Chawla said that extensive use of the mark ‘Schezwan Chutney’ or ‘Szechuan Chutney’ by other manufacturers indicates that the industry recognizes the mark as a description of the product.
“In the present case, in my prima facie opinion, the combination of the two words does not take away the descriptive nature of the words as they still continue to describe the nature and quality of the product in question. In fact, it is together that they become descriptive,” said the court.
Delhi High Court Directs CARA To Issue NOC To NRI Couple For 2011 Adoption
Case Title: Anil Kumar Singh & Anr. versus Union of India
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 38
Directing CARA to issue an NOC within 30 days to an NRI couple for adoption of a child, the Delhi High Court in a ruling said the application being prior to the coming into force of Adoption Regulations, 2022, the "adoption would not be strictly required to be dealt with in the procedure prescribed in the said Regulations."
"The Court finds that in the present case the adoption dates back to 2011 and the application seeking NOC was filed much before the Regulations came into force on 23rd September, 2022. The Regulations have been notified and current applications, would require verification by the District Magistrate," said the court.
Title: DR. U.S. AWASTHI v. ADJUDICATING AUTHORITY PMLA & ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 39
The Delhi High Court has observed that an application for cross-examination filed before the Adjudicating Authority under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 is an integral part of the adjudication process and not alien to the proceedings under Section 8 of the enactment. The court also said cross-examination need not be permitted in every case.
Justice Prathiba M Singh said that any interim or procedural orders passed as part of the adjudication process would be “orders under this Act” as stipulated under Section 26. The provision states that the Director or any person aggrieved by an order made by the Adjudicating Authority under PMLA may prefer an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal.
The court, however, said that not every appeal against such order would be liable to be entertained and that it is for the Appellate Tribunal to decide as to whether an appeal ought to be entertained at all.
Title: IKRA KHAN v. JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 40
Questioning AJK Mass Communication Research Centre's action of conducting a “qualitative assessment” after declaration of results of the interview in a PhD programme, the Delhi High Court has said that it “hopes and expects” that Jamia Millia Islamia will conduct admissions strictly as per the procedure laid down under its academic ordinance and regulations.
Denying relief to a candidate aggrieved by denial of admission to Ph.D. programme in AJK Mass Communication Research Centre, Justice Sanjeev Narula observed that the practice of making such deliberations after award of marks for the interview is contrary to scheme of admission process contemplated under “Ordinance No. 9 (IX), Part I of Ordinances and Regulation (Academic).”
“Court is unable to appreciate why after awarding marks and announcement of results, further assessment was undertaken. Interview is the only time during the entire admission process that merit and suitability of both, candidates and their proposal, are evaluated and assessed,” the court said.
Title: SMT KAMESHWARI DEVI & ANR. v. THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) AND ORS
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 41
The Delhi High Court has asked the Delhi State Legal Services Authority (DSLSA) to keep in mind the fact as to whether any insurance amount has been received while awarding compensation to the victims or dependents in case of death or grievous injuries.
“In future, whenever the DSLSA considers cases of compensation in the case of death or grievous injuries, the fact as to whether any amount has been received from the Insurance Company, or not, would be borne in mind while awarding the compensation to the victims or the dependents thereof,” Justice Prathiba M Singh said.
Title: RAJO v. DELHI BUILDING AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION WORKERS BOARD & ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 42
The Delhi High Court has directed Delhi Building and other Construction Workers Welfare Board to consider accepting applications of constructions workers six months before they become eligible for receiving the pension.
Justice Rekha Palli observed that since the Building and Other Construction Workers, Act 1996 and Rules are silent regarding the time period during which pension must be sanctioned to the workers after they attain the age of 60 years, it would save a lot of inconvenience to them if they are permitted to submit their applications six months prior to their becoming eligible for receiving pension.
“The respondent Board is, therefore, directed to consider accepting applications of the constructions workers six months before they become eligible for receiving pension so that once they reach the age of superannuation, their pension can be sanctioned, at the earliest, without any further delay,” the court said.
Case Title: Bright Simons versus Sproxil Inc & Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 43
The Delhi High Court has ruled that merely because the arbitrator had wrongly applied the .IN Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (INDRP Policy), while adjudication a dispute over domain names under the said Policy, the award cannot be set aside in the absence of perversity.
The bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh ruled that the terminology used by the arbitrator in the award, that the party had failed to prove its claim “beyond doubt”, cannot be equated with the legal term ‘beyond reasonable doubt’, as is used in the criminal trial. Thus, the Court rejected the argument that the standard of proof imposed by the arbitrator violated the fundamental principles of Indian law.
Title: SANJEEV KUMAR TIWARI v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 44
The Delhi High Court rejected a plea seeking review of a judgment dismissing the public interest litigation that had last year challenged the appointment of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud.
A division bench of Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Vikas Mahajan observed that the petition was an appeal “disguised as a review” and it did not fall within the four corners of review.
“Petitioner is not able to show any error apparent on face of record. There are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order passed on November 11, 2022. The petition is accordingly dismissed,” the bench said.
Title: SUBWAY IP LLC v. INFINITY FOOD & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 45
Dismissing its prayer for interim injunction, the Delhi High Court has observed that Subway cannot claim any exclusivity over the word ‘Sub’, especially when used in the context of eateries serving submarine sandwiches.
Justice C Hari Shankar ruled that the word "Sub" is "publici juris" when used in the context of eateries dealing with submarine sandwiches.
“No exclusivity can, therefore, be claimed, by the petitioner over the first part of its registered SUBWAY mark, i.e, "SUB." The plaintiff cannot claim a monopoly over all two-syllable words of which the first syllable is "SUB", especially when used in the context of eateries which serve sandwiches and similar items," the court said.
Title: Kuldeep Singh Sengar v. CBI
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 46
The Delhi High Court granted interim bail to former BJP MLA Kuldeep Singh Sengar, who was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment in Unnao rape case, to allow him attend his daughter’s wedding.
A division bench of Justice Mukta Gupta and Justice Poonam A. Bamba granted interim bail to Sengar for a period of 15 days - January 27 to February 10.
Title: M/S JAI SINGH AND CO versus NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 47
Allowing petitions that had challenged National Highways Authority of India (NHAI)'s decision to invite fresh bids for collection of user fee at two toll plazas in Haryana during subsistence of ongoing contracts, the Delhi High Court has ruled that a mere possibility of more money in a public contract cannot be the sole criteria for terminating contracts and more particularly, the contracts which are for a fixed duration.
Observing that increase in traffic was the sole reason for calling the fresh Request for Proposal (RFP) by the NHAI, the division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad said the decision was arbitrary, capricious and whimsical on part of the authority.
Title: AKSHAT BALDWA & ORS. v. YASH RAJ FILMS
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 48
The Delhi High Court directed Yash Raj Films to prepare audio description, close captioning and subtitles in Hindi language for the OTT release of its upcoming movie Pathaan to make it accessible for hearing and visually impaired persons.
The movie is scheduled to be released in theatres on January 25 and will be screened on Amazon Prime later in April.
Justice Prathiba M Singh directed the producer Yash Raj Films to prepare audio description, close captioning and subtitles of the movie within two weeks and submit it to Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) for a decision on re-certification by February 20. The court directed that a decision on recertification of the film be taken by March 10.
Title: EMTA COAL LIMITED & ORS. v. DEPUTY DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 49
The Delhi High Court has quashed the ECIR and attachment orders passed by the Enforcement Directorate against EMTA Coal Limited and other individuals, observing that if there is an acquittal or discharge or a closure report has been filed in the predicate offence, the ECIR would not stand and the same would be liable to be quashed.
"In view of the settled legal position in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and the subsequent decisions and orders thereafter, the impugned attachment orders dated 14th February, 2022 and 20th June, 2022 as also the ECIRs are quashed," Justice Prathiba M Singh said.
Title: JAGJIT PAL SINGH VIRK v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 50
The Delhi High Court has observed that information relating to Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) and senior personnel of Indian Navy would not be liable to be disclosed under the Right to Information Act, 2005.
Justice Prathiba M Singh upheld an order passed by Chief Information Commission (CIC) rejecting an RTI application filed by a commander in the Indian Navy. He had sought the information after denial of promotion to the post of Captain in 2014, 2015 and 2016.
Case Title: Tata Steel BSL Limited v Venus Recruiter Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 51
The Delhi High Court Bench comprising of the Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad, while adjudicating an appeal filed in Tata Steel BSL Limited v Venus Recruiter Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., has held that that avoidance applications filed under IBC survive even after approval of the resolution plan, in cases where Resolution Plans are unable to account for such applications. These applications can be heard even after CIRP stands concluded.
Case Title: Anubhav Jain versus Satish Kumar Jain & Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 52
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the right to seek cancellation of a mark and rectification of the register, conferred by Section 57 and by Clause (ii) of the second part of Section 124(1) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, are independent rights, which are both available for invocation by an interested party.
“…. while the right under Section 57, for cancellation of a mark and rectification of the register remains available, if an infringement suit has been filed by the opposite party and the defendant pleads invalidity of the plaintiff’s mark as a ground of defence to the suit, the defendant would acquire an independent right under Clause (ii) of Section 124 of the Trademarks Act to move the learned IPAB (now the High Court) for rectification of the register," the court said.
Title: ARUSHI MEHRA & ANR. v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 53
The Delhi High Court has observed that there is no requirement of “at least one party being a citizen of India” for solemnization and registration of marriage of a couple under the provisions of Special Marriage Act, 1954.
Justice Prathiba M Singh noted that section 4 of the enactment leaves no doubt that any two persons can seek solemnization of their marriage so long as conditions stipulated in the provision are fulfilled.
“Sub-Sections (a), (b), (c) and (d) of Section 4 do not make any reference to citizens. It is only in Sub-Section (e) of Section 4, where the statute requires that in case of marriages solemnized in Jammu and Kashmir, both parties have to be citizens of India,” the court said.
Case Title: Ashwani Kumar Sharma & Ors. versus Union of India
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 54
The Delhi High Court has ruled that BSNL employees, who opted for Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) 2019, can be engaged in any Central Public Sector Enterprise (CPSE) or Government Department on contractual or consultancy basis.
The division bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta was dealing with a writ petition filed by former employees of BSNL, who had taken VRS from the government telecom company in 2019. Their petition challenged the "clarification/directive" dated 25.06.2021, issued by the Department of Telecommunications (DoT), which interpreted the term “employment/re-employment” in the VRS Scheme to include engagement on contractual/consultancy basis.
Case Title: SN versus IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 55
The Delhi High Court has dismissed an appeal challenging the grant of recovery rights to an insurer against the registered owner of the car whose son was involved in a road accident leading to the death of a 42 year old man in 2013.
Justice Rekha Palli said the 42-year-old man lost his life only because the minor's father did not take appropriate steps to ensure that his vehicle is driven only by a person holding a valid driving licence.
Title: RABINDRA TIWARY v. LT. GOVERNOR, GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 56
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a candidate's plea seeking appointment as a judicial officer against the unfilled vacancies which were reserved for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes candidates in the Delhi Higher Judicial Service Examination - 2022.
A division bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan observed that the petitioner candidate does not have any indefeasible right to be appointed to the higher judicial service and that he cannot, as a matter of right, claim that the vacancies reserved for SC/ST candidates be de-reserved.
Title: MCD v. Lokpal of India
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 57
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday asked the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to not act on the order passed by Lokpal of India directing the central agency to initiate a probe against officials of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) over a complaint alleging illegal and unauthorized constructions in South Delhi area.
"Considering the nature of matter, in the meantime, the CBI shall not proceed with the investigation under the impugned order ... It is however clarified that if there are any specific complaints which are received by Lokpal against any other officials of the MCD or in general against unauthorised constructions, there would be no interdiction of the Lokpal proceedings, in accordance with law, in such a matter," said the court.
Case Title: COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION V. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE AND ORS
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 58
The Delhi Police has informed the High Court that it is carrying out periodic checks throughout the national capital to ensure that no barricade remains unmanned and that it will make all possible endeavours to keep all the barricades manned.
Taking noting of the submission, a division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad disposed of a suo moto public interest litigation registered by the court last year in respect of the unmanned barricades
Case Title: Bhushan Oil and Fats Pvt Ltd versus Mother Dairy Fruit and Vegetables Pvt Ltd
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 59
The Delhi High Court has ruled that no appeal is maintainable under Order XLIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) against the order of refusal of an application filed under Order VII Rule 11 seeking rejection of the plaint.
While holding that an appeal can be filed only against the orders passed by a Court which are specifically provided under Order XLIII Rule 1, the bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Saurabh Banerjee said that Order VII Rule 11 of CPC does not find any mention in Order XLIII Rule 1.
Case Title: Union of India & Anr. versus Alcon Builders and Engineer Pvt. Ltd
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 60
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the mandate contained in Section 31(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), as per which an arbitral award shall state the reasons on which it is based, must pervade every aspect of the award, including the award of costs.
“Awarding costs by a stroke of the pen, without stating reasons therefor, would fly in the face of section 31(3), apart from being opposed to well accepted canons of fairness and justice”, the bench of Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani remarked. The Court thus set aside the award of costs made against the award debtor, holding that the same was arbitrary since it was unreasoned and did not contain any quantification.
Title: PSV v. THE INDIAN SCHOOL & ANR
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 61
The Delhi High Court has observed that barring a student from taking examinations on the ground of non-payment of fees would be infringement of rights of a child as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Justice Mini Pushkarna observed that a child’s future cannot be allowed to be spoiled and blemished by barring him or her from taking examinations, especially at a crucial juncture of class X and XII examinations.
“Thus, a child cannot be made to suffer and not be allowed to attend classes or barred from taking examinati
Title: X v. STATE
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 62
The Delhi High Court has issued a slew of directions regarding the presence of POCSO victims during bail hearings, observing that the same has an adverse impact on the psyche of the victim.
Justice Jasmeet Singh directed that the victim can be produced virtually before the court, either by the IO or a support person, by way of Video Conferencing or by taking assistance of the District Legal Services Authority (DSLSA).
Observing that the victim and accused will not come face to face in this manner and the same can prevent “victim’s re-traumatization,” the court said that hybrid form of hearing of bail applications would suitably address the concerns of the victim while at the same time safeguarding the rights of accused.
Delhi High Court Dismisses Plea By Asiya Andrabi's Dukhtaran-E-Millat Challenging UAPA Ban
Title: DUKHTARAN-E-MILLAT v. UNION OF INDIA
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 63
The Delhi High Court dismissed a plea moved by Separatist leader Asiya Andrabi led Dukhtaran-e-Millat (DeM) challenging a notification declaring it as a terrorist organisation under Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.
The Kashmir-based all-women outfit was banned by the Centre on December 30, 2004 under Section 3 of UAPA. Arrested by the National Investigation Agency in 2018, Andrabi continues to remain in judicial custody.
Justice Anish Dayal dismissed the plea after noting that the petitioner organization has a remedy available under UAPA to seek removal of its name from the Schedule, which was not exercised in the matter.
Case Title: Amanatullah Khan v. State
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 64
The Delhi High Court dismissed a plea moved by Aam Aadmi Party MLA Amanatullah Khan challenging opening of history sheet against him by Delhi Police in March last year declaring him as a bad character.
VAT Department Not To Initiate Coercive Measures Against PSU Pawan Hans: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Pawan Hans Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Trade and Taxes
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 65
The Delhi High Court has granted a stay to helicopter charterer PSU Pawan Hans Ltd. against a VAT demand of Rs. 176 crores.
The division bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan has observed that the issue needs consideration and directed the VAT department not to initiate coercive measures for recovery of the VAT demand confirmed by the Delhi VAT Tribunal in the interim.
Title: SURJEET KUMAR v. STATE
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 66
The Delhi High Court has said that there is no requirement of a birth certificate to prove the age of the victim and that any school certificate is sufficient evidence to prove the victim’s age.
Justice Jasmeet Singh made the observation while perusing section 94(2)(i) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of children) Act, 2015 which provides for presumption and determination of age.
The provision states that where the Child Welfare Committee or the Juvenile Justice Board has reasonable grounds for doubt regarding whether the person brought before it is a child or not, it shall undertake the process of age determination, by seeking evidence by obtaining the date of birth certificate from the school or the matriculation or equivalent certificate.
Case Title: Sneh Aggarwal versus Punjab National Bank
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 67
The Delhi High Court has said that findings of departmental authorities in disciplinary proceedings cannot be challenged by the employee under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, on the grounds of adequacy or reliability.
"It is also a settled proposition that if the enquiry is properly held the departmental authorities are the sole judge of facts," Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma said.
The court was dealing with a writ petition filed by a bank employee, who was dismissed from service in 1995 for misconduct and fraud after a departmental enquiry was conducted by the bank. The employee challenged the award passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT), where the petitioner’s claim for reinstatement in service was dismissed.
Title: RAHUL MEHRA v. UNION OF INDIA
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 68
The Delhi High Court has appointed retired Supreme Court judge, Justice Arjan Kumar Sikri, as Administrator to oversee utilization of funds in the upcoming ISSF Shooting World Cup, 2023.
ISSF World Cup (Rifle/Pistol) is scheduled to be held in Bhopal in March.
A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad observed that the country’s prestige will be affected if there is any impediment in organizing the World Cup event which would require funding from the Central Government.
Title: KRBL LIMITED vs VIKRAM ROLLER FLOUR MILLS LIMITED
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 69
The Delhi High Court has refused to grant an interim injunction in favour of KRBL Limited, a market leader in the business of processing, marketing and exporting rice, in a case accusing Vikram Roller Flour Mills of infringing its right over the 'India Gate' mark by its use in respect of 'dalia'.
Justice Amit Bansal said Vikram Mills has placed sufficient material on record showing use of the ‘INDIA GATE’ device mark by it from 1990, which is prior to the registration granted to KRBL.
Title: SACHIN & ORS. v. CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE & ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 70
The Delhi High Court has ordered that there will be age relaxation of three years in the upper age limit as a “one time measure” for candidates intending to apply for the posts of Head Constable (Ministerial) in CRPF 2022 examination. An advertisement for the posts was issued on December 27 last year.
A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna has directed the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) and Central Government to issue a Corrigendum on or before January 25, the last date of applying to the post in question and also to extend the date of inviting applications.
Title: UNION OF INDIA v. KOLLI UDAY KUMARI
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 71
The Delhi High Court has said that a widowed or divorced daughter is entitled to the benefit under freedom fighter pension scheme of 1980, noting that the scheme does not contemplate their exclusion.
A division bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Talwant Singh observed that a “quick read” of the 1980 Scheme and 2014 Guidelines framed under it would show that an unmarried daughter falls in the category of eligible dependents and hence, is entitled to pension upon the expiry of the freedom fighter.
“The expression “unmarried” adverts to a person who is not married. It includes a woman who is single i.e., who was married but divorced and even a woman who is widowed,” the court said.
Title: V K KANJLIA v. STATE NCT OF DELHI
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 72
The Delhi High Court has observed that death caused due to overwork and toxic work environment is a social problem which requires the government, labour unions, health officials and corporates to formulate appropriate policies.
Observing that the problem of “toxic work culture” is plaguing all booming economies, Justice Jasmeet Singh cited the example of Japan where a term "karoshi” - which means “overwork deaths”, is used to signify a large number of deaths caused on account of “hostile working environment” which causes physical and mental stress.
Case Title: Monika Oli versus M/s CL Educate Ltd.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 73
The Delhi High Court has ruled that delivery of arbitral award, to be effective under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), must be made to a person who has direct knowledge of the arbitral proceedings. The bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh remarked that the word ‘party’ in Section 34(3) of the A&C Act means party to the arbitral proceedings and does not include an agent of the party as well.
The Court further held that, delivery of the arbitral award to the employee of an entity in which the award debtor is a shareholder but the arbitral dispute does not pertain to that entity, would not constitute as proper delivery in terms of the A&C Act.
Delhi High Court Refuses To Quash Money Laundering Case Against Raghav Bahl, Calls Plea 'Premature'
Title: Raghav Bahl v. ED
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 74
The Delhi High Court has refused to quash a money laundering case against The Quint's founder Raghav Bahl at this stage. The court also refused to quash the look out circular (LOC) against him at this stage
Dismissing the plea challenging registration of ECIR and proceedings initiated by ED, Justice Jasmeet Singh said:
“The allegations (under the complaint) are yet to reach the stage of trial. Whether there is generation of proceeds of crime or not is being investigated and for the said reason, the petition as of today is premature and is rejected.”
The Income Tax department had initiated proceedings against Bahl under the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act for alleged irregularities in IT returns filed for the assessment year 2018-2019. The complaint was filed under section 51 of the Act.
Title: N v. Principal Secretary Health and Family Department GNCTD & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 75
The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi Government to issue a circular directing that the identity of a minor girl, who is seeking medical termination of her pregnancy, and her family shall not be disclosed in the report prepared by registered medical practitioners (RMP) to the police.
Section 19(1) of POCSO Act provides mandatory reporting of child sexual offences to the Special Juvenile Police Unit or the local police.
Justice Prathiba M Singh passed the direction after observing that the minors and their families may be forced to approach non-registered and unqualified medical practitioners, midwives and courts to terminate the pregnancies which could result in adverse impact on the health of the minor.
Title: ISHA v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 76
Observing that COVID-19 vaccination cannot be insisted upon by the employer, the Delhi High Court has granted relief to a government school lecturer seeking permission to teach and undertake other responsibilities without being forced to take the vaccine.
Noting that the teacher, who moved court in 2021, was now vaccinated, Justice Prathiba M Singh permitted her to make a representation to the concerned authority for service benefits and directed that the decision on the same be taken within 30 days.
Title: RS v. STATE OF NCT DELHI AND ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 77
Observing that FIRs should not be registered against law students for posing as lawyers before the courts, the Delhi High Court has said that they should be counselled instead.
"It is understandable that Presiding Officers take an objection where law interns tend to pose as lawyers, but on the other hand, these law interns, who are merely students, should be counselled, properly informed and instructed, rather than FIRs being registered, merely on this basis," said the court.
Justice Anish Dayal said that a law intern is a student who is in process of understanding the court practice and procedures and therefore it is the “duty of the institution” to take adequate steps to facilitate their education and training and not simply punish them for these “inadvertent acts.”
Case Title: Ram Prakash Chauhan Versus Commissioner of Delhi (GST)
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 78
The Delhi High Court has held that the payment of tax and penalty to release the detained goods shall not be treated as "admission" on the part of the assessee.
The division bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan has observed that the petitioner had paid the tax and penalty for the release of the goods and that the said payment was not voluntary. Neither the show-cause notice nor the order of demand clearly sets out the reason for imposing the tax liability as well as the penalty.
Title: M/S PRAKASH INDUSTRIES LIMITED v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 79
The Delhi High Court has observed that Enforcement Directorate (ED) can only investigate the offence of money laundering and cannot assume, from the material gathered by it during investigation, that a predicate offence stands committed
Emphasising that the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 empowers the ED to investigate offences under Section 3 only, Justice Yashwant Varma said:
“Its power to investigate and enquire stands confined to the offence of money laundering as defined in that Section. However, the same cannot be read as enabling it to assume from the material that it may gather in the course of that investigation that a predicate offense stands committed. The predicate offence has to be necessarily investigated and tried by the authorities empowered by law in that regard.”
Deaf Sportspersons Have To Be Treated On Par With Para-Athletes: Delhi High Court To Centre
Title: VIRENDER SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. and other connected matters
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 80
The Delhi High Court has observed that deaf and para sportspersons have to be treated equally and neither category can be discriminated against the other.
Justice Prathiba M Singh was hearing the petitions moved by four sportspersons in 2020, who won medals in several international events. They have been assessed with having 100% disability in hearing and speaking. By way of the petitions, they sought equal treatment of deaf sports persons with other para-athletes.
It was their case that sportspersons who participate in Deaflympics, being deaf, would be deserving of the same status as those who participate in Olympic games.
Title: RITA SEHGAL & ORS v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 81
The Delhi High Court has asked the Union of India to enforce the recently-enacted provisions for grant of compensation to road accident victims, under the Motor Vehicles Act, within six months.
Referring to Motor Vehicles (32nd Amendment) Act, 2019 which inserted sections 145 to 165 in the Act of 1988, a division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad said:
“Resultantly, as the statute provides for a remedy for grant of compensation to the road accident victims even if the accident causing vehicle is uninsured as well as in the accidents caused by hit and run cases, Union of India is granted six months’ time to enforce the provisions which are now in the statute books.”
Case Title: Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (Hqrs.) versus M/s Spraytec India Ltd
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 82
The Delhi High Court has ruled that merely because an officer of customs contemplates that a question may arise for consideration, does not mean that the question is “pending” consideration so as to bar the Customs Authority for Advance Ruling (CAAR) from deciding the issue in an application for advance ruling, under Clause (a) of the proviso to Section 28-I (2) of the Customs Act, 1962.
The bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Amit Mahajan held that in order for a question to be considered as pending before any customs officer, its necessary that the question must be raised in a notice, enabling the assessee to respond to the said issue. It added that the CAAR is not barred from giving an advance ruling on a question only on the ground that a preliminary exercise was done by a customs officer to determine whether any question for consideration in the case of the assessee arises or not.
No Provision In GST Act for Confiscating Currency From The Premises : Delhi High Court
Case Title: Arvind Goyal CA Versus UOI
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 83
The Delhi High Court ruled that there is no provision in the GST Act that would allow for the forcible removal of currency from the premises of any person.
The division bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan has observed that the powers of search and seizure are draconian powers and must be exercised strictly in terms of the statute and only if the necessary conditions are satisfied.
Case Title: Chabbras Associates v. HSCC India Limited
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 84
The Delhi High Court has held that an application for the appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11 of the A&C Act would be premature if it is filed without compliance with the pre-arbitration internal dispute resolution mechanism stipulated under the agreement.
The bench of Justice Navin Chawla held that when the agreement provides for a multi-tier dispute resolution process in the form of reference of dispute firstly to some internal authorities and on being dissatisfied invoke the arbitration, then the parties cannot directly approach the court for the appointment of arbitrator without exhausting the remedy given under the contract.
Title: MINOR R THR MOTHER H v. STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 85
The Delhi High Court has issued guidelines to the Investigating Officers to be followed in rape and sexual assault cases where victim's pregnancy exceeds 24 weeks.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma directed that at the time of medical examination of a victim of sexual assault, it will be mandatory to conduct a “Urine Pregnancy Test”.
The court further said that when the victim, who is major and is found pregnant due to sexual assault, expresses her desire for medical termination of pregnancy, the investigating officer will ensure that she is produced before a medical board on the same day.
Also Read: Woman Entitled To Termination Of Pregnancy In Rape Cases, Has Right To Say 'Yes' Or 'No' To Being A Mother: Delhi High Court
Arbitration Clause Continues To Operate Even After Dissolution Of Partnership: Delhi High Court
Case Title: M/s Shyamjee Prepaid Services versus M/s Top Steels & Mrs. Renu Devi & Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 86
The Delhi High Court has ruled that an arbitration clause contained in a contract executed with a partnership firm, will continue in effect even after the death of a partner causes the dissolution of the partnership.
The bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh held that the Court has the power to conduct a procedural review of its order passed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act). It further remarked that the Courts’ competence to review Section 11 orders is unaffected by substantive concerns like a Tribunal’s jurisdiction or the authenticity of evidence.
Title: NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 87
The Delhi High Court has directed Delhi Government’s Director of Education to ensure that there is no scarcity of teachers in primary schools meant for visually impaired students.
A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad also said that all possible efforts must be made to ensure that teachers are permitted to continue in such schools till the current academic session is over and the students do not suffer due to unavailability of teachers.
“Director (Social Welfare) & Director (Education) of the State Government are directed to ensure strict compliance of the order keeping in view the fact that the examinations are going to be held in the month of March,” the court said.
Not Permissible To Take One Dose Of Covishield And Another Of Covaxin: Centre To Delhi High Court
Title: MADHUR MITTAL v. UNION OF INDIA
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 88
The Central Government has informed the Delhi High Court that it is not permissible for an individual to take first dose of Covishield and second dose of Covaxin.
Central Government’s standing counsel Anurag Ahluwalia told Justice Prathiba M Singh that mixing of two COVID-19 vaccines is not permissible for the first and second dose. However, he said it is allowed for the booster dose.
The court was hearing a plea moved by Madhur Mittal, a cancer patient, in 2021 seeking permission to take Covaxin for second dose instead of Covishield, which was administered to him as the first dose.
Case Title: Hindustan Zinc Ltd v. National Research Development Corporation
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 89
The Delhi High Court has held that objections available under Section 47 of CPC cannot be considered by a Court at the time of enforcement of an arbitration award under Section 36 of the A&C Act.
The bench of Justice Vashwant Varma held though under the Arbitration Act, 1940, the Arbitral Award was required to be made a rule of the Court and a decree but Section 36 of the Arbitration Act, 1996, confers the Arbitral Award with a status of a decree to be enforced in the same manner as if it were a decree of the Court. However, the deeming fiction is limited for the purpose of enforcement and not to make it a decree for all purposes, thus, the objections that can be raised against a decree at the enforcement stage would not apply to an arbitration award which is a deemed decree only.
Title: Yashdeep Chahal v. UOI & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 90
Dealing with a plea seeking action against media houses for revealing identity of victim and accused persons of Hyderabad rape case, the Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi Government to set up “one stop centres” in every district in compliance of a Supreme Court decision of 2018.
A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad referred to the judgment in Nipun Saxena v. Union of India passed on December 11, 2018.
The apex court in the ruling had requested state governments and Union Territories to set up at least one one stop centre in every district within one year of the judgment. It had observed that such centres can be used as a central police station where all crimes against women and children in town or city are registered.
Delhi High Court Dismisses PIL Seeking Censor Board For Non-Film Songs Released On Internet
Title: NEHA KAPOOR & ANR v. MINISTRY OF INFORMATION AND BROADCASTING & ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 91
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation which had sought setting up of a regulatory authority or censor board to review and censor the non-film songs and their contents including their lyrics and videos, before their release on internet. The petition had sought immediate ban on all non-film songs with "obscene/vulgar" content.
A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad said that there is a clear regulation or regime laid down by the Central Government to regulate the information or content which is available to the general public through various media platforms.
Case Title: Blackstone Capital Partner Versus ACIT
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 92
The Delhi High Court has quashed the reassessment notice as the AO failed to apply his mind as to whether an investment in shares was a capital account transaction.
The division bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju has observed that the principal allegation against the assessee is that it purchased shares of an Indian company and that this led to the escapement of income chargeable to tax. The central issue to which the AO should have applied his mind is whether the investment in shares by the assessee was a capital account transaction, given the fact that there is no allegation of round-tripping. There is no reference to Section 115A either in the show-cause notice or in the order passed by the AO.
Case Title: Delhi State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation v. Sukumar Chand Jain
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 93
The Delhi High Court has held that the a no-claim certificate is given under coercion if it was in a pre-printed form and a pre-condition to the release of payment under the final bill.
The bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Amit Mahajan held dispute between the parties cannot be said to be settled by accord and satisfaction on account of no-claim certificate given by the contractor, if the employer, as a matter of practice, requires all the contractors to furnish a pre-printed no-claim certificate as a pre-condition to release of payment under the final bill.
Title: X v. GNCTD
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 94
Delhi High Court has granted bail to a 20-year-old in a POCSO case after the victim — the wife of accused, told the court that they were in a consensual relationship at the time of alleged offence, and is offering to stand as surety for him in case he is granted bail.
In the decision on the bail application moved by the accused, Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani said the offences under Section 376 (2) and Section 6 POCSO Act are alleged to have been committed when the victim, who is over 19 years old now, was at the cusp of majority.
Case Title: Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax versus M/s Steel Authority of India Ltd.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 95
The Delhi High Court has reiterated that Explanation 2 to Section 37(1) of Income Tax Act, 1961, inserted by the Finance Act, 2014, which bars deduction of CSR expenses while computing income from business or profession, is prospective in nature.
The bench of Justices Rajiv Shakdher and Tara Vitasta Ganju remarked that deductibility of CSR expenses under Section 37(1), prior to its amendment by the Finance Act, cannot depend upon how the funds are spent by the recipient.
Title: CPIO, CENTRAL ECONOMIC INTELLIGENCE BUREAU v. G.S. SRINIVASAN
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 96
The Delhi High Court has ruled that an exempted intelligence or security organisation under the Right to Information Act, 2005, cannot be asked to disclose the outcome of a complaint which does not relate to corruption or human rights violations.
Setting aside a Central Information Commission (CIC) order directing the CPIO of Central Economic Intelligence Bureau (CEIB) to consider providing outcome of a complaint to the appellant, Justice Prathiba M Singh said the information relating to money laundering business, hawala money transactions, tax evasion and smuggling activities do not relate to “corruption or human rights violations” and thus, they cannot be disclosed under the RTI Act.
Title: RAVINDER LAL AIRI v. S.SHALU CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD AND ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 97
The Delhi High Court has observed that a revision petition filed against an order directing registration of FIR is maintainable as such an order is not an interlocutory order. The accused has a valuable right to be heard, said the court.
Justice Jasmeet Singh said the registration of FIR affects the fundamental right and freedom of an accused. The person can be summoned for investigation, arrested without warrants for allegations of cognizable offences, the court observed.
“Therefore, an order directing registration of FIR u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. is not an interlocutory order and the revision petition against the same would be maintainable as the accused has a valuable right to be heard,” Justice Singh said.
Title: SANDISK LLC & ANR versus LAXMI MOBILES & ORS
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 98
Passing a permanent injunction against two shopkeepers for selling counterfeit microSDHC cards and USB flash drives under 'SanDisk' name, the Delhi High Court has held them liable to pay damages of Rs 4 Lakh to SanDisk LLC and SanDisk India Device Design Centre.
Justice Sanjeev Narula in a ruling said the photographs of goods seized by the Local Commissioners from the shopkeepers in Trichy, Tamil Nadu demonstrate that they were indulging in sale and distribution of products which display identical marks as that of SanDisk's.
Case Title: Al Sudais Haj and Umrah Service v. Union of India & Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 99
The Delhi High Court on Monday quashed and set aside an order which debarred a private tour operator from applying for being enlisted as a Haj Group Operator (HGO) for a period of 05 years.
Centre had also forfeited the tour operator's security deposit of Rs 25 lakhs. The court has said the petitioner Al Sudais Haj and Umrah Service shall be entitled to refund of the security deposit.
"Since the Court has found that the debarment would not sustain, the same shall not act as a disqualification in the future years," the court said further.
Title: WAZIRPUR BARTAN NIRMATA SANGH (THROUGH ITS SECRETARY) & ORS v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 100
Taking exception to the “unhealthy pattern” of not filing status reports and affidavits in time, the Delhi High Court has cautioned the government authorities, state departments and corporations that costs would be imposed if the time schedule for pleadings fixed is not adhered to.
Justice Prathiba M Singh observed that usually all the governmental authorities, despite specific directions, are unable to file the affidavits within the specified time schedule and “they choose to do so only within the same just one or two days before the date of hearing.”
Case Title: Charu Chains & Jewels (P) Ltd. Versus ACIT
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 101
The Delhi High Court has held that the underlying information or material that formed the basis for triggering the assessment or reassessment proceedings was required to be furnished to the assessee.
The division bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju has noted that the petitioner has indicated that it will file a further response once the information or material is provided, and even if the information or material is not provided, it will reserve its right to file a further response.
Title: SMT. BENI v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT DELHI AND ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 102
The Delhi High Court has ruled that jhuggi jhopri dwellers cannot be disqualified from rehabilitation under Delhi Government’s policy merely because their name doesn't reflect in the electoral roll.
Justice Prathiba M Singh relied on the judgment of a division bench in Udal and Ors. v. Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board and Ors wherein it was held that the parties would be permitted to place on record other documents including ration card, school records, driving license, aadhar card etc for being considered eligible of the rehabilitation scheme.