1. Revisional Jurisdiction Is Not Meant To Test The Waters Of What Might Happen In The Trial: Delhi High Court
Case Title: V K VERMA v. CBI
2022 LiveLaw (Del) 388
Delhi High Court recently observed that revisional jurisdiction is not meant to test the waters of what might happen in the trial.
The observation came from Justice Chandra Dhari Singh who also said that the revisional Court has to consider the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding inter se an order and as to the regularity of the proceedings of the court below:
"The revisional jurisdiction is not meant to test the waters of what might happen in the trial. The Revisional Court has to consider the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding inter se an order and as to the regularity of the proceedings of the court below. While doing so, the Revisional Court does not dwell at length upon the facts and evidence of the case, rather it considers the material only to satisfy itself about the legality and propriety of the findings, sentence and order and refrains from substituting its own conclusion on an elaborate consideration of evidence. In the instant case, the Petitioner has failed to make out a case for exercise of the revisional jurisdiction since there is no patent error in the impugned order on the face of record." court said.
2. S.11 Arbitration & Conciliation Act | Not Necessary To Go Into Merits Of Claim/ Counter-Claim For Appointment Of Arbitrator: Delhi High Court
Case Title: OYO HOTELS AND HOMES PVT. LTD. v. PARVEEN JUNEJA & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 389
The Delhi High Court has observed that in a petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of arbitrator, High Court is not to go into the merits of the claim or the counter-claim, if any, of the parties.
Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva observed that the High Court has to examine as to whether there is an arbitration agreement between the parties and there are any disputes unless ex-facie it is apparent from the record that the disputes are a mere deadwood.
The Court was dealing with a plea filed by Oyo Hotels and Homes Private Limited seeking reference of disputes to a Sole Arbitrator under a Lease Deed dated 23.10.2019.
3. Registration Of Family Arrangement Necessary Only If Terms Are Reduced Into Writing, Not Where Arrangement Is Oral: Delhi High Court
Case Title: DR. SANJIV GUPTA & ANR. v. SH. S.S. VERMA
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 390
The Delhi High Court has observed that registration is not necessary where family arrangement is oral and that the same is necessary only if the terms of the arrangement are reduced into writing.-
"It is well settled that registration would be necessary only if the terms of the family arrangement are reduced into writing. Here also, a distinction should be made between a document containing the terms and recitals of a family arrangement made under the document and a mere memorandum prepared after the family arrangement had already been made either for the purpose of the record or for information of the court for making necessary mutation. In such a case the memorandum itself does not create or extinguish any rights in immovable properties and therefore does not fall within the mischief of Section 17(2) of the Registration Act and is, therefore, not compulsorily registrable" Justice Najmi Waziri reiterated.
4. Re-Agitation Of Same Issue Is Gross Abuse Of Court Process: Delhi HC Imposes 10K Cost On Litigant Seeking Transfer Of Investigation To CBI
Case Title: KV SAGAR v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 391
The Delhi High Court has imposed a cost of Rs. 10,000 on a litigant seeking transfer of investigation to Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) despite a similar plea being dismissed as withdrawn by the Court on earlier occasion.
Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta was dealing with a plea seeking transfer of investigation of FIR to C.B.I. A similar criminal writ petition with identical prayer was dismissed as withdrawn by the Court vide order dated March 22, 2022.
The facts of the case were that the petitioner had purchased a pair of shoes from Woodland. Since the shoes were found to be defective, an online complaint was made. After lot of communications, the pair of shoes was taken back for repairs. The petitioner did not receive any response from the shoe company and, as such, a complaint was filed but FIR was not registered.
5. 'Not Uncommon To Shift Graves When They Obstruct Development': Delhi HC On Waqf Board's Appeal Seeking Stay On Transfer Of Burial Ground To ITBP
Case Title: DELHI WAQF BOARD v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 392
The Delhi High Court has refused to entertain an intra-court appeal preferred by the Delhi Waqf Board, challenging a single judge order refusing to stay Centre's decision of transferring a portion of its purported property, said to be in use as a burial ground, to the Indo-Tibetan Border Police (ITBP).
A Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Navin Chawla rejected the contention raised by the appellant that irreparable loss will be caused if the transfer is not stayed, inasmuch as the land in question was being used as a burial ground.
The bench further said that since the impugned order is only an interim order, it is not inclined to interfere with the same, especially in view of the fact that the rights of the Appellant have been "sufficiently protected".
6. Delhi High Court Extends Interim Order Allowing Reopening Of Masjid In Nizamuddin Markaz Till October 14
Case Title: DELHI WAQF BOARD Through its Chairman v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 393
The Delhi High Court this week allowed reopening of five floors, including Ground floor as well as four floors, of the masjid premises in Nizamuddin Markaz till October 14.
Justice Jasmeet Singh extended the operation of the interim order dated April 1, 2022 wherein the mosque was allowed to reopen for offering of prayers during the Ramzan month.
The said interim order shall continue to remain in force till October 14, the next date of hearing.
Public entry was banned at the Nizamuddin Markaz in the aftermath of Tablighi Jamaat members testing positive for Covid-19 in 2020.
This comes in a plea filed by Delhi Waqf Board seeking to ease restrictions at the Nizamuddin Markaz, which has been locked since March 31, 2020. The Court's permission was in continuation of its previous order dated March 16, 2022 wherein four floors of the masjid premises were allowed to remain open on Shab e-Barat.
7. Condonation Of Delay | Indolence Beyond A Point Results In Forfeiture Of Right To Secure Justice: Delhi High Court
Case Title: ANIL KUMAR v. KISHAN SARRAF & ORS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 394
In the context of condonation of delay, the Delhi High Court has observed that indolence, beyond a point, results in forfeiture of the right to secure justice.
Justice C Hari Shankar dismissed the appeal challenging the impugned order dated 30th November, 2015, which was initially challenged before the High Court after nearly three years in 2018.
The Court said that there was no explanation as to why the plea was filed in 2018 after three years of the passing of the impugned order.
"There being no reasonable explanation for the delay in preferring the present appeal, and learned Counsel being unable to assist the court in this regard, the appeal is dismissed on the ground of delay and non-prosecution," the Court said.
It added "Indolence, beyond a point, results in forfeiture of the right to secure justice. The process of the court cannot be held at ransom, awaiting the convenience of the appellant."
8. "Husband & Wife Two Pillars Of Family, Whole House Crashes Down If One Gets Weak": Delhi High Court Upholds Divorce Granted In Wife's Favour
Case Title: x v. Y
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 395
The Delhi High Court has upheld an order passed by the Family Court granting divorce in favour of the wife under sec. 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 observing that the wife had well established the ground of mental cruelty by the husband.
The Family Court had granted divorce to the respondent wife under sec. 13(1)(ia) of the HMA solely relying on ground of mental cruelty.
While upholding the same, a division bench comprising of Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Jasmeet Singh observed thus:
"Husband and wife are two pillars of the family. Together they can deal with any situation, balancing the family in all circumstances. If one pillar gets weak or breaks, the whole house crashes down. The pillars can withstand all the abuses together, the moment one pillar gets weak or deteriorates, it becomes difficult to hold the house together. When one pillar gives up, and puts all the burden on the other pillar, then it cannot be expected that one pillar will single handedly hold the house together."
9. Failure To Supply Of "Legible Copies" Of Documents Relied Upon Despite Request By Detenu Renders Detention Order Illegal: Delhi High Court
Case Title: ZAKIR KHAN v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. and other connected matter
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 396
The Delhi High Court has observed that a detention order passed by the Detaining Authority based on "illegible" copies of documents suffers from non-application of mind and is liable to be quashed.
It added that a further failure and non-supply of legible copies of all documents to the Detenu, despite request and representation, renders the order of detention illegal and bad in law.
A division bench comprising of Justice Siddharth Mridul and Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar allowed the petitions filed by two detenus namely Zakir Khan and Sanjeev Kumar praying for quashing of detention orders dated November 26, 2021 issued under sec. 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974.
10. Chhatrasal Stadium Murder: Delhi HC Refuses To Transfer Trial From Rohini Court, Directs Witnesses To Seek Recording Of Evidence Through Virtual Mode
Case Title: AMIT KUMAR AND ORS v. STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) AND ANR
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 397
The Delhi High Court has directed the prosecution witnesses in relation to the Chhatrasal Stadium murder case to approach city's Rohini Court seeking recording of their evidence through virtual mode.
The case relates to the death of former junior national wrestling champion Sagar Dhankhar. Wrestler Sushil Kumar is one of the accused in the matter.
Justice Jasmeet Singh disposed of a plea filed by victims and prosecution witnesses in the case who alleged being beaten mercilessly by more than 20 gangsters of various gangs of the city when the alleged incident took place, which resulted into death of one of victims namely Sagar Dhankar.
The plea had therefore sought transfer of trial in the case from Rohini Court to some other district court in the interest of safety of the victims and prosecution witnesses for a fair and impartial trial as also an 'in-camera' day-to-day hearing in the matter.
11. DHL International Courier: Delhi High Court Restrains Use Of Infringing Mark 'DLH'
Case Title: DHL INTERNATIONAL GMBH v. DLH EXPRESS SERVICES PRIVATE LTD.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 398
Delhi High Court recently granted permanent injunction in favour of DHL International, a well recognized courier service company, against DLH Express services, holding that the two trademarks are identical and deal in similar services.
Justice Prathiba M. Singh observed:
"Considering the fact that the Defendant has already changed the name DLH and the use of the impugned mark has also been stopped, this is a fit case for grant of permanent injunction in favour of the Plaintiff, by way of summary judgment. Accordingly, the suit is decreed in terms of the paragraphs 61(a) to 61(c)."
The Plaintiff - DHL International GmbH, a German company had filed the suit seeking permanent injunction restraining infringement of trademark, trade dress, dilution and tarnishment, passing off, damages etc., against the Defendant - DLH Express Services Private Ltd. It was claimed that DHL is a distinctive logo and trade dress, which was initially adopted in 1969, has evolved over the year.
12. Party Can't Exhaust Alternate Remedy In SC Before Approaching HC U/Art. 227; There Can Be No Appeal From 'Caesar' To 'Mark Antony': Delhi HC
Case Title: LUCINA LAND DEVELOPMENT LTD v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 399
The Delhi High Court has observed that a party cannot be directed to exhaust the alternate remedy available before the Supreme Court before approaching the High Courts under Article 226/227 of the Constitution.
Referring to Shakespeare's Julius Caesar, Justice C Hari Shankar said:
"There can be no appeal from Caesar to Mark Antony."
The Court was dealing with a matter concerning a complaint filed before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) against the petitioner Lucina Land Development Ltd. and others by 51 allotees of flats in a project titled Indiabulls Greens Panvel.
13. ITAT Final Arbiter Of Facts, Its Order Can Be Interfered With Only If There Is Substantial Question Of Law, Manifest Illegality/ Perversity: Delhi HC
Case Title: THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -2- AGRA v. MADHUR MITTAL
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 400
Observing that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) is the final arbiter of the facts, the Delhi High Court has observed that the High Court can interfere with its order only if there is substantial question of law or there is manifest illegality or it suffers from perversity.
Justice Manmohan and Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma was dealing with an appeal challenging the order dated 10.01.2019 passed by ITAT. The appellant had stated that the assessee had filed return of income for assessment year 2008-09 declaring an income of Rs.2,82,271 under sec. 139 (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
On 28.09.2010, search and seizure operation under sec. 132 of the Act was carried out in Triveni Group and a search warrant under sec. 132 (1) of the Act was issued and executed in the name of the assessee as well. The assessee belonged to the Triveni Group. A notice under sec 153A of the Act was also issued to the assessee.
14. Factual/ Legal Errors In Arbitral Award Falling Short Of Perversity Do Not Merit Interference U/S 34 Or 37 Of Arbitration Act: Delhi High Court
Case Title: M/S. MOVIE TIMES CINEPLEX PVT. LTD. v. M/S. MRG DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 401
The Delhi High Court has observed that the Arbitrator or Tribunal is the final arbiter on facts as well as in law, and even errors, factual or legal, which stop short of perversity, do not merit interference under sec. 34 or 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
A division bench comprising of Justice Mukta Gupta and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna was dealing with an appeal under sec. 37 of the Act challenging the order dated 12.07.2017 passed by the Single Judge of High Court which had dismissed the objections filed by the appellant under sec. 34 of the Act seeking setting aside of the arbitration award dated 01.06.2016.
Movie Times had filed a suit against the respondents seeking injunction and recovery of rent against the respondents in respect of the leased premises. The same was disposed of vide order dated 07.10.2009, directing Movie Times to take recourse to arbitration, resulting in the appointment of the sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties, who passed the Arbitral award dated 01.06.2016 in relation to the disputes in respect of the Lease deed.
15. Non Filing Of Response Due To Technical Glitch In E-Filing Portal: Delhi High Court Quashes The Order And Directs Fresh Hearing
Case Title: Ankit Kaul Versus National Faceless Assessment Centre
Citation: 022 LiveLaw (Del) 402
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Subramonium Prasad has held that the taxpayer could not file a response under the Faceless Scheme due to a technical glitch in the e-filing portal.
The petitioner/assessee has challenged the ex-parte order passed under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The department passed the order under Section 147 read with Sections 144 and 144B of the Income Tax Act without taking the written submission of the petitioner on record.
16. Trees Only Hope Of Environmental Redemption In Commercialized Cities, Must Not Be Cut Needlessly: Delhi High Court
Case Title: NEERAJ SHARMA v. VINAY SHEEL SAXENA & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 403
The Delhi High Court has observed that trees hold out as welcome and assuring living entities of hope, sanity, environmental redemption and even companionship and that they must not be allowed to be cut needlessly or wantonly.
Justice Najmi Waziri observed thus:
"In this capital city with its ever-bourgeoning populating, the cacophony of voices and rampant commercialization of every other street – robbing the residents of the familiar ambience of their residential neighbourhood, the ever-increasing motor-vehicular traffic, the choking air-pollution and the ever-creeping concretization, trees hold out as welcome and assuring living entities of hope, sanity, environmental redemption and even companionship."
17. "Defamatory": Delhi High Court Directs Twitter To Take Down 5 More Tweets Posted By Historian Audrey Truschke Against Vikram Sampath
Case Title: DR. VIKRAM SAMPATH v. DR. AUDREY TRUSCHKE & ORS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 404
The Delhi High Court has directed micro blogging site Twitter to take down five more tweets posted by historian Audrey Truschke against historian Dr. Vikram Sampath over alleged plagiarism with respect to his two-volume biography of Vinayak Damodar Savarkar.
Justice Amit Bansal was of the view that the tweets in question were defamatory in nature and that there was a link posted in the said tweets to the letters, the publication of which was injuncted by the Court vide orders dated 18th February, 2022 and 24th February, 2022.
The Court was dealing with an application filed on behalf of Sampath under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking a direction for taking down of further defamatory tweets posted by Truschke on Twitter.
18. Sale Of Counterfeit Products Has Become Prolific On Internet, Needs To Be Arrested To Protect Customers, Trademark Owners: Delhi High Court
Case Title: SIRONA HYGIENE PRIVATE LIMITED v. PARULBEN NAVNATH CHOTHANI TRADING AS SHIV ENTERPRISE & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 405
The Delhi High Court has observed that the sale of counterfeit or knock-off products has become prolific on the internet, which needs to be arrested in order to protect the owners of the trade marks as also the customers who purchase such products.
Justice Pratibha M Singh made the aforesaid observation while dealing with a trademark infringement suit filed by Sirona Hygiene Private Limited against M/s Parulben Navnath Chothani, trading as Shiv Enterprise.
Three e-commerce websites namely Snapdeal, Meesho and Amazon, through their companies were arrayed as Defendant No. 2, 3, and 4 respectively whereas Defendant No. 5 was a John Doe defendant.
19. What Are The Basic Principles Relating To Bank Guarantees, Their Invocation & Interdiction? Delhi High Court Answers
Case Title: M/S GARG BUILDERS THROUGH SHRI MOHINDER PAL GARG v. HINDUSTAN PREFAB LTD. AND ANR
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 406
The Delhi High Court has settled down the basic principles relating to bank guarantees, their invocation and the interdiction of such invocation.
While observing that commercial contracts often contain clauses requiring the contractor to furnish bank guarantees, Justice C Hari Shankar said that such bank guarantees are either bank guarantees provided towards security for having been awarded the contract, or performance bank guarantees to guarantee performance of the contract, though, on occasion, other bank guarantees such as bank guarantees towards mobilization advance etc. may also be required to be provided.
The Court added that the contract, in such cases, also provides for the circumstances in which the bank guarantees could be invoked, as well as the purpose for requiring the bank guarantees to be provided in the first place.
20. Accused Can't Claim De Novo Trial As A Matter Of Right Unless Claim Of Counsel's Ineffectiveness Is Proved To Satisfaction Of Court: Delhi HC
Case Title: BABLU TIWARI @ JATA SHANKAR TIWARI v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 407
The Delhi High Court has observed that an accused cannot, as a matter of right claim de novo trial, except where he is able to show and prove his claim of ineffectiveness of counsel's assistance and his representation falling below an objective standard of reasonableness, to the satisfaction of the court.
Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar added that such a relief is to be granted sparingly, in exceptional circumstances, where it appears prima facie that the apprehension of the defendant is sincere and bonafide and the defence counsel has utterly failed to build any defence owing to his incompetence.
The facts of the case are that an FIR was registered against the petitioner on 02.09.2016 under sec. 354 and 354A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sec. 8 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 alleging that on 31.08.2016, when the prosecutrix was returning from tuition, an unknown male person touched the breasts of the prosecutrix and attempted to flee.
21. Needless Hypersensitivity Not Expected Of Judicial Officers, Should Maintain Composure & Poise: Delhi High Court Sets Aside ₹5 Lacs Cost
Case Title: SUCHIT GUPTA v. GAURAV SAINI & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 408
Observing that needless hypersensitivity is not expected of Judicial Officers who are expected at all times to maintain composure and poise, the Delhi High Court has set aside Rs. 5 lacs cost imposed by a Additional Rent Controller with a 'word of advice'.
Unequivocally expressing its discomfiture at the manner in which the order was passed, Justice C Hari Shankar said:
"In order that the career of the learned ARC, who appears to be a fairly young Judicial Officer, is not prejudiced, I deem it appropriate to close this matter by setting aside the impugned order insofar as it imposes costs of ₹ 5 lacs to the petitioner, with a word of advice to the learned ARC to ensure that, in future, a great degree of temperance is exhibited by him in discharge of his judicial functions."
"Unwarranted and needless hypersensitivity is not expected of Judicial Officers, who are expected, at all times to maintain composure and poise, befitting the office they hold."
22. Acquittal On Failure To Prove Beyond Reasonable Doubt Does Not Oust Disciplinary Proceedings Where Test Is Preponderance Of Probabilities: Delhi HC
Case Title: SATISH SACHIV BABA v. CPWD (M.R.D.)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 409
The Delhi High Court has observed that an acquittal in criminal proceedings in which the guilt of a person has to be held to have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, does not preclude the disciplinary proceedings in which the charges of misconduct have to be established on a preponderance of probabilities.
Justice Anu Malhotra observed that mere acquittal in the criminal proceedings does not prevent the management to proceed with the departmental proceedings against an employee.
"…the acquittal in criminal proceedings in which the guilt of a person has to be held to have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, does not preclude the disciplinary proceedings in which the charges of misconduct have to be established on a preponderance of probabilities to continue and to consequentially result into a penalty inclusive of a penalty of termination of service in the event of an employee having been held to have violated the service rules," the Court observed.
23. Relief For HT Media: Delhi High Court Grants Ex-Parte Interim Injunction Against Infringing Website Hindustan Times Marathi
Case Title: HT MEDIA LIMITED & ANR. versus DIPALI SANTOSH RAO & ORS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 410
The Delhi High Court recently granted ex-parte interim injunction in favour of HT Media Limited which runs news publications in various languages in the name Hindustan Times, against a party using a deceptively similar logo and domain name.
Justice Jyoti Singh observed:
"Having heard the learned counsel for the Plaintiffs, this Court is of the view that Plaintiffs have made out a prima facie case for grant of ex parte ad-interim injunction. Balance of convenience lies in favour of the Plaintiffs and they are likely to suffer irreparable harm in case the injunction, as prayed for, is not granted."
The Plaintiff company operates with the domain names "hindustantimes.com" and "marathi.hindustantimes.com".
It has moved the High Court seeking injunction against domain name/ website "hindustantimesmarathi.com" primarily engaged in publishing, hosting, communicating, etc. news, articles, stories, columns, etc. in Hindi and Marathi to Indian readers and viewers, said to be using a deceptively identical logo to the plaintiff's name.
24. Delhi High Court Upholds Order Of Revenue Department Imposing Enhanced Compounding Charges On Subsequent Offences
Case Title: M/s Maspar Industries Private Limited & Ors. versus Chief Commissioner of Income Tax TDS & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 411
The Delhi High Court has upheld the order of the revenue department imposing enhanced compounding charges on subsequent applications for compounding of offences relating to late deposit of Tax Deducted at Source (TDS).
The Bench, consisting of Justices Manmohan and Dinesh Kumar Sharma, held that compounding of offences cannot be taken as a matter of right and it is for the law and authorities to determine as to what kind of offences should be compounded and under what conditions. The Court added that there is a rationale behind imposing a higher rate for subsequent offences as the revenue department wants to incentivize compliance.
The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) had compounded the offence pertaining to late deposit of Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) committed by the petitioner M/s Maspar Industries Private Limited. The petitioner filed a writ petition in the Delhi High Court challenging the order passed by the Chief Commissioner.
25. Copyright Infringement: Delhi High Court Orders Blocking Of 12 Websites Illegally Streaming Content Of Universal City Studios
Case Title: UNIVERSAL CITY STUDIOS LLC & ORS. v. VEGAMOVIES.RUN & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 412
In a matter relating to copyright infringement, the Delhi High Court has ordered for blocking of 12 websites which were illegally streaming, hosting and making available to public the original content of Universal City Studios LLC, without its authorization.
Observing that Universal City Studios LLC had made out a prima facie case for grant of ex-parte ad-interim injunction, Justice Jyoti Singh restrained the 12 websites from hosting, streaming, reproducing, distributing, making available to the public or communicating to the public any cinematograph work or content in relation to which Plaintiffs had a Copyright.
The Court also directed Department of Telecommunications (DoT) and Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MEITY) to take immediate steps and issue requisite Notifications, calling upon various internet and telecom service providers registered under them to block the said websites.
26. Delhi High Court Grants Ex-Parte Interim Injunction In Favour Of Hindustan Unilever, Orders Blocking Of 5 Rogue Websites
Case Title: HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LTD & ANR. versus UNILEVERR1.IN & ORS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 413
The Delhi High Court recently granted ex parte interim injunction in favour of FMCG giant Hindustan Unilever Ltd. and against 5 rogue websites including "Unilever1.in" on ground that their trademark and website domain is deceptively similar to that of the plaintiff.
The injunction was granted by Justice Jyoti Singh:
"Having heard learned counsel for the Plaintiffs, this Court is of the view that Plaintiffs have made out a prima facie case for grant of ex parte ad-interim injunction. Balance of convenience lies in favour of the Plaintiffs and they are likely to suffer irreparable harm in case the injunction, as prayed for, is not granted."
The application was preferred by the Plaintiff- Hindustan Unilever under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for grant of ex-parte ad-interim injunction.
27. "Sport Is Suffering": Delhi High Court Appoints Court Commissioner For Conducting Elections To Executive Committee Of Taekwondo Federation Of India
Case Title: ANISH DAS TALUKDAR (MINOR) THROUGH MS. SASMITA DAS TALUKDAR (LEGAL GARDINAN AND MOTHER) AND ANR v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 414
The Delhi High Court has appointed a Court Commissioner-cum-Returning Officer for the purpose of conducting elections for the executive committee of the Taekwondo Federation of India.
Observing that the sport of Taekwondo was suffering and the genuine Taekwondo players were not getting the opportunity to represent the country, Justice Rekha Palli said:
"It would, therefore, be in the interest of the sport to direct holding of fresh elections to the executive committee of the Taekwondo Federation of India so as to enable the Union of India to take expeditious steps for recognizing a suitable federation as the National Sports Federation for the sport of Taekwondo."
The Court thus appointed retired Justice Sistani as the Court Commissioner-cum- Returning Officer for holding the elections to the executive committee, while adding that the elections will be held within a period of two months.
28. Object Of Bail Merely To Secure Attendance: Delhi High Court Grants Bail To Law Student In Rash Driving Case
Case Title: K RAJAPANDIAN v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 415
The Delhi High Court has observed that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused at the trial and is not to be withheld as a punishment.
A single judge bench comprising of Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta added that though the possibility of evidence being tampered or the witnesses being influenced has also to be kept in perspective, however, one single circumstance, cannot be treated as a universal validity or necessarily justifying the grant of refusal of bail which is largely influenced with the nature/seriousness of offence.
The Court thus granted bail to a 19 year old law student who was languishing in jail for a period of about two months, noting that the investigation was over, his custodial interrogation was not required and the chargesheet was also filed.
29. High Court Refuses To Interfere With Delhi University's Decision Of Holding Upcoming Examinations In Physical Mode
Title: Vemika Verma and Others v. University of Delhi and Others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 416
The Delhi High Court has refused to interfere with the decision of the Delhi University of holding the upcoming even semester examinations in May 2022 in the physical mode.
Justice Rekha Palli, who was of the opinion that it was not the stage to issue any directions, however granted liberty to the petitioners, who were students of the Delhi University, to approach the Court in case of further change in circumstances.
Accordingly, the plea was dismissed as withdrawn.
The plea had challenged a notice issued by the University dated February 11, 2022 whereby it was decided that the May examination of even semester will be held in physical mode.
30. Foreign Creditors Can't Be Treated Differently From Domestic Creditors In Modern Times Of Globalization: Delhi High Court
Case Title: TOSHIAKI AIBA AS THE BANKRUPTCY TRUSTEE OF THE ESTATE OF VIPAN KUMAR SHARMA v. VIPAN KUMAR SHARMA & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 417
"In the modern times of globalization, foreign creditors cannot be treated differently from domestic creditors," the Delhi High Court has observed.
Justice Amit Bansal observed thus while dealing with an application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) on behalf of the applicant (defendant no.2) seeking rejection of the plaint.
31. Re-Assessment Notice Issued To Wrong Assessee: Delhi High Court Directs National Faceless Assessment Centre To Be More Cautious
Case Title: PCJ SECURITIES PRIVATE LIMITED v. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 19(1) DELHI & ORS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 418
The Delhi High Court has directed the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax of National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) be more cautious while passing the Assessment Orders.
A division bench comprising of Justice Manmohan and Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma also directed Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) to ensure that any glaring mistakes do not occur in the future.
The Court was dealing with a plea challenging the assessment order dated 30th March, 2022 passed by National Faceless Assessment Center, Delhi under sec. 147 read with sec. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and demand notice dated 30th March, 2022.
The counsel for the petitioner had stated that the facts and figures mentioned in the impugned assessment order dated 30th March, 2022 did not pertain to the petitioner.
32. Inordinate And Unexplained Delay In Rendering Arbitral Award Is Against Public Policy Of India: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Director General Central Reserve Police Force versus Fibroplast Marine Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Del) 419
The Delhi High Court has ruled that inordinate and unexplained delay in rendering the arbitral award is in conflict with the public policy of India and is amenable to challenge under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act).
The Single Bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru held that award of damages arbitrarily and without any basis also falls foul of the public policy of India.
The petitioner Director General of Central Reserve Police Force floated a tender inviting bids. The respondent Fibroplast Marine Pvt. Ltd. submitted its bid and was declared successful. Thereafter, the parties entered into an agreement. After certain disputes arose between the parties, the respondent invoked the agreement to refer the disputes to arbitration. The respondent filed a petition under Section 11 of the A&C Act before the Delhi High Court for appointment of an arbitrator. A sole arbitrator was appointed by the Court to adjudicate the disputes under the aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC). The arbitrator passed an award in favour of the respondent, along with costs and interest. The petitioner filed a petition under Section 34 of the A&C Act against the arbitral award before the Delhi High Court.
33. If The Contract Is Extended By The Employer, It Cannot Be Allowed To Reduce The Period Of The Extension Retrospectively: Delhi High Court
Case Title: North Delhi Municipal Corporation v. IJM Corporation Berhad
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 420
The High Court of Delhi has held that when the employer has granted the contractor an extension of time for a specified period, it cannot turn around to contend that the extension was only provisional and it is allowed to reassess or reduce the number of days by which the execution of the contract was executed.
The Single Bench of Justice Sanjiv Sachdeva has held that once the period of the contract has been extended by the employer, it cannot be allowed to retrospectively reduce the period of the extension.
34. The Weak Financial Condition Of A Party Cannot Be The Sole Ground To Deposit Security Or Bank Guarantee: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Manish Aggarwal and Anr v. RCI Industries and Technologies Ltd.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 421
The High Court of Delhi has held that the weak financial condition of a party cannot be the sole ground to direct the party to deposit a security or bank guarantee to secure the amount involved in the arbitration.
The Single Bench of Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani has held merely because a party is in financial distress, it cannot be the sole ground to direct it to deposit the security when the other party has failed to satisfy the arbitral tribunal that it has a prima facie case in its favour and that the party against whom such relief is sought is trying to transfer or dispose of its assets from the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal to obstruct or delay the enforcement of the award.
The Court held that the purpose of Section 17 of the A&C Act is not to securitise an unsecured and indeterminate sum, therefore, the tribunal would not allow an application for direction to a party to furnish security unless the party claiming such a relief satisfies the arbitrator that it is likely to succeed in arbitration and the other party is transferring its assets intending to render the award unenforceable.
35. Delhi HC Dismisses Plea Seeking Review Of Order Giving Visitation Rights To Father Only If He Resided In Same Building As That Of Child
Case Title: KINRI DHIR versus VEER SINGH
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 422
The Delhi High Court recently dismissed a review petition seeking to challenge an order giving visitation rights to father only if he resided in the same building.
Justice Kameswar Rao observed:
"In any case, this Court, while modifying the impugned order of the Trial Court dated October 28, 2021, had noted the fact that the minor child is of tender age of less than three years and it is no denial to the fact that ultimately while giving visitation rights, it is the interest of the child, which is paramount. I see no reason to entertain the petition, the same is dismissed."
This Review Petition was filed by the respondent/applicant seeking review of the order dated March 24, 2022 whereby this Court granted him visitation rights to the minor child, subject to the respondent/applicant residing in the same property. He informed the Court that he had also filed an SLP previously before the Supreme Court challenging the order to the extent of the condition i.e. allowing visitation only when he's living in the same property.
36. Arbitrator Terminating The Arbitral Proceedings Under Section 25(A) Of The A&C Act, Challenge Maintainable Under Article 227 Of The Constitution Of India: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Union of India versus Indian Agro Marketing Co Operative Ltd
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 423
The Delhi High Court has ruled that since no alternate remedy is available to the claimant to challenge the order of the arbitrator terminating the arbitral proceedings under Section 25(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), hence, a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the said order of the arbitrator is ex facie maintainable.
The Single Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar reiterated that the Arbitral Tribunal has the power to recall the order passed by it under Section 25(a) of the A&C Act terminating the arbitral proceedings.
37. Convict Under POCSO Act Not Barred From Seeking Parole, Discretion Vested In Competent Authority To Grant It Under 'Special Circumstances': Delhi HC
Case Title: RAKESH @DIWAN v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 424
The Delhi High Court has reiterated that a convict under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 is not barred from seeking parole, as discretion has been vested in the Competent Authority to grant parole to such a convict under "special circumstances".
Justice Asha Menon added that while there is no doubt true that the Legal Services Authorities at all levels endeavour to provide excellent legal assistance to those in prison, however, to deny the convict an opportunity to engage with other counsel to enable him to make up his mind freely, as to whom he would wish to engage, would violate his constitutional rights to legal representation.
The Court was dealing with a plea seeking release of the petitioer on parole for a period of eight weeks on the grounds of filing Special Leave Petition.
Case Title: BELA CREATION PVT LTD v. ANUJ TEXTILES
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 425
The Delhi High Court has observed that in cases where parties are represented by counsel, the said counsel have a bounden duty to ensure that pleadings, filed before a Court, are intelligible.
Giving a word of caution, Justice C Hari Shankar expressed displeasure over filing of an application of the petitioner under Order VII Rule 14 of Code of Civil Procedure after opining that the same did not contain a single sentence which was grammatically or syntactically correct.
Thus, the Court rejected a plea challenging an impugned order dated 24th February, 2022 wherein the Trial Court had rejected an application under Order VII Rule 14 filed by the petitioner, defendant in the civil suit, with costs of Rs. 5000.
Case Title: Amit Gupta Vs Directorate General of GST Intelligence Headquarters
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 426
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Mukta Gupta has ruled that the bail amount can be paid by cash ledger and debit ledger of the Input Tax Credit (ITC).
It has been alleged by the department that the petitioner is one of the directors/key persons in M/s Brilliant Metals Pvt. Ltd., M/s Progressive Alloys India Pvt. Ltd. and M/s JBN Impex Pvt. Ltd. and allegedly the mastermind behind devising a mechanism of availing ITC on the strength of bills of various suppliers which were non-existing and fictitious, thus availing fraudulent ITC worth Rs. 27.05 crores, which he further passed on. The petitioner received a total of Rs. 260 crores in ITC from the three companies.
Title: NIKITA CHANDEL v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI and other connected matters
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 427
Every lawyer, who appears for his client, has a right of fair hearing, irrespective of who the complainant is," the Delhi High Court has recently observed recently.
Justice Talwant Singh was dealing with a plea filed by seven accused persons seeking anticipatory bail directly in the High Court after claiming that since the complainant was an advocate, a fair hearing before the District Court was not possible because their counsels may be heckled during arguments.
Title: GEETA SINGH v. PRADEEP SINGH
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 428
The Delhi High Court has observed that in a case where the Company has also been accused, the liability cannot be said to have been arisen only qua the private person and that the Company has to be proceeded against legally by giving it an opportunity to be heard.
Justice Chandra Dhari Singh added that the liability of a private person, in his capacity of a Director or any other authority to act on behalf of the Company, if has to be severed from the liability of the Company, cannot arise against him when the Company itself is also an accused.
"Such liability against the person would arise when the accused person has issued the cheque in his personal capacity which is distinguishable from his capacity as an employee or Director of a company. Where the Company has also been accused, the liability cannot be said to have been arisen only qua the private person and the Company has to be proceeded against legally by giving it an opportunity to be heard," the Court said.
Title: STARBUCKS CORPORATION v. TEAQUILA A FASHION CAFE & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 429
The Delhi High Court has awarded Rs. 2 lakhs damages and an amount of Rs. 9,60,100 in favour of Starbucks Corporation in a trademark infringement suit filed by it over the usage of its registered trademark'FRAPPUCCINO'.
Justice Jyoti Singh was dealing with the suit filed by the plaintiff, Starbucks Corporation against one Teaquilla A Fashion Cafe, seeking a decree of permanent injunction restraining the Defendants from infringing it's registered trademark "FRAPPUCCINO" either alone or with any prefix or suffix or any other confusing and deceptively similar trademark in relation to their goods, services and business as well as passing off.
Case Title: Youth Against Crime v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 430
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday cleared the release of Ranveer Singh starrer Yashraj film "Jayeshbhai Jordaar" after it was assured by the producers that relevant disclaimers, to the effect that Pre-natal sex determination is a criminal offence, shall be depicted in relation to an ultrasound scene and another connected scene.
A division bench comprising of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri disposed of a plea filed by an NGO namely Youth Against Crime, challenging the film over depiction of a prenatal sex-determination scene in the trailer. The film is set to hit the theatres on May 13.
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday cleared the release of Ranveer Singh starrer Yashraj film "Jayeshbhai Jordaar" after it was assured by the producers that relevant disclaimers, to the effect that Pre-natal sex determination is a criminal offence, shall be depicted in relation to an ultrasound scene and another connected scene.
A division bench comprising of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri disposed of a plea filed by an NGO namely Youth Against Crime, challenging the film over depiction of a prenatal sex-determination scene in the trailer. The film is set to hit the theatres on May 13.
44. Delhi High Court Grants Bail To Former Religare CFO Krishnan Subramanian In RFL Scam Case
Title: KRISHNAN SUBRAMANIAN v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 431
The Delhi High Court has granted bail to Krishnan Subramanian, former CFO of Religare Enterprises Limited, in connection with the Fortis Religare Scam case involving the alleged financial scam of disbursal of loans worth thousands of crores to shell entities having no financial strength.
Justice Chandra Dhari Singh granted bail to Subramanian subject to Subramanian furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1 Lac with two sureties each of the like amount.
Title: LAXMI & ANR v. SHYAM PRATAP & ANR
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 432
The Delhi High Court has observed that the daughter-in-law can claim maintenance from her father-in-law provided she has inherited some estate of her husband.
A division bench comprising of Justice Mukta Gupta and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna dismissed a plea filed by a widowed daughter-in-law and grand-daughter under sec. 19 of the Family Court Act, 1984 against the order dated 3rd May, 2019 deferring their claim for interim maintenance in a petition under sec. 19 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956.
Case Title: RIT Foundation v. UOI and other connected matters
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 433
The Delhi High Court has passed a split verdict on a batch of petitions challenging the exception to Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code, which exempts forceful sexual intercourse by a man with his own wife from the offence of rape.
Justice Rajiv Shakdher has held that the exemption to the husband from the offence of marital rape is unconstitutional. Exception 2 of 375, 376B IPC was therefore struck down by him as violative of Article 14.
"The impugned provisions in so far as they concern a husband having intercourse with his wife without consent are violative of Article 14 and are therefore struck down", Justice Shankdher held.
However, Justice C Hari Shankar said that he does not agree with Justice Shakdher. Justice Harisankar has held that Exception 2 to Section 375 does not violate Constitution and that the exception is based on an intelligible differentia.
Case Title: Kedar Nath Babbar Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 434
The Delhi High Court held that the court was only required to see whether there was prima facie some material on the basis of which the department could reopen the assessment. The sufficiency of the correctness of the material cannot be considered while issuing the reassessment notice.
The division bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma observed that the courts should exercise their writ jurisdiction very sparingly if there is an "alternative efficacious remedy." The petitioner cannot be allowed to short circuit the procedure merely out of convenience. If a statutory forum is created by law for the redressal of grievances, a writ petition should not be entertained ignoring the statutory dispensation.
Case Title: Union of India versus Delhi State Consumer Co Operative Federation Ltd.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 435
The Delhi High Court has ruled that abrupt issuance of orders by the Arbitral Tribunal terminating the arbitral proceedings under Section 25 (a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), without holding any hearing and without issuing any show cause notice, is unsustainable and suffers from perversity of approach.
The Single Bench of Justice Prateek Jalan held that to ensure that an Arbitral Tribunal performs the duty entrusted to it is a core aspect of the supervisory function of the High Court, and thus where the Arbitral Tribunal has failed to decide the review applications filed by the claimant seeking recall of the order terminating the arbitral proceedings, the Court can invoke Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
49. Section 65-B Of Indian Evidence Act Does Not Apply To Arbitral Proceedings: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Millennium School v. Pawan Dawar, O.M.P. (COMM) 590/2020
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 436
The High Court of Delhi has held that Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 does not apply to arbitral proceedings.
The Single Bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru held that although the principles of the Evidence Act usually apply, sensu stricto, the specific provisions of the Act do not apply.
The Court further held that an objection as to the non-compliance with the requirement of Section 65-B shall be raised at the earliest opportunity. Failure to take such an objection at the material time deprives the other party to take such an objection at a later stage.
Case Title: PEPSICO INC. & ANR. versus JAGPIN BREWERIES LIMITED & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 437
The Delhi High Court recently granted an ex parte injunction in favour of Pepsico against a liquor company allegedly using their mark i.e. Mirinda.
A bench of Justice Jyoti Singh observed that Pepsico had successfully made out a prima facie case for an ad-interim injunction since the balance of convenience lies in their favour. :
"This Court is of the view that Plaintiffs have made out a prima facie case for grant of ex parte ad-interim injunction. Balance of convenience lies in favour of the Plaintiffs and they are likely to suffer irreparable harm in case the injunction, as prayed for, is not granted."
Case Title: Extramarks Education India Private Limited V. MES Central School, ARB. P. 327 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 438
The High Court of Delhi has held that a party cannot be deemed to have waived its right to invoke arbitration merely because it has filed a written statement in respect of disputes that are not covered under the agreement.
The Single Bench of Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva held that a suit in respect of a dispute that is not governed by the arbitration agreement is not an impediment to the invocation of the arbitration.
Case Title: Kiran Infra Engineers Limited versus Northern Railway
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 439
The Delhi High Court has held that whether a supplementary agreement between the parties, rescinding the arbitration clause contained in the principal contract, is contrary to law or not in view of taking away the right of a party to invoke arbitration, is required to be decided by the arbitrator himself.
The Single Bench of Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva ruled that the disputes raised by the party contending that the supplementary agreement was hit by Section 17 and Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, since it was signed by the party under duress and undue influence, are disputes which the Arbitral Tribunal is competent to rule upon.
Title: AZHAR RASHEED v. STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 440
The Delhi High Court has called for framing of medical protocols at national level for guidance of medical practitioners doing aesthetic surgeries and hair transplantation procedures.
Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta directed the Centre as well as the Delhi Government to take steps for ensuring that "mushrooming Salons" carrying hair transplantation procedures under unprofessional hands without requisite qualification and in absence of medical supervision, are checked.
The Court also directed the Commissioner of Police, Delhi to take necessary measures to ensure that incidents of medical malpractice are not repeated and action is taken against such Salons wheresoever the hair transplantation treatment or aesthetic surgery is being extended at the hands of technicians or unqualified professionals without any medical supervision in defiance of established protocols and norms.
Title: x v. Y
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 441
The Delhi High Court has observed that the overall development of the children should ideally involve both the parents and that the settlement agreement should reflect the same.
Justice Subramonium Prasad was dealing with a contempt plea filed by a wife for the alleged non-compliance of the order passed by the Family Court.
It was stated by the counsel appearing for the Petitioner wife that the Respondent husband had violated the order dated which was based on a settlement agreement inasmuch as the husband was neither coming forward for second motion nor was he fulfilling his obligations with regard to the monetary settlement of the child.
Title: GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI v. SATBIR & ANR
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 442
The Delhi High Court has observed that the jurisprudence does not extend to accommodating and condoning all inordinate or unjustifiable delays by the governmental agencies while adding that each case of such delay has to be examined on its individual merits.
A division bench comprising Justice Najmi Waziri and Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma observed thus:
"Although courts would take an accommodative view apropos appeals or reviews filed by Government departments, as there could be administrative delays, for which the Government's interest and the overall public interest should not suffer."
Case Title: GAIL (India) Ltd. V. Trivendi Engineering & Industries LTD.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 443
The High Court of Delhi has held that liquidated damages can't be imposed when the Engineer-in-Charge holds that the cause of delay is explained.
The Single Bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru held that when the Engineer-in-Charge was entrusted with the task of examining the causes of delay, and it had analysed and accepted the justification provided by the contractor and recommended several extensions without the imposition of LD, it was not open for the employer to levy LD when the delay was not attributable to the contractor and so was determined by the Engineer-in-Charge.
Case Title: Gujarat Gas Ltd. v. Vedanta Ltd and Ors., O.M.P.(I)(COMM) 125 of 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 444
The High Court of Delhi has held that a party cannot demand its 'Right to First Refusal' after making a counter-offer to the seller.
The Single Bench of Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani has held that when the party that has been given the right to first refusal (RoFR) makes a counter-offer, the seller becomes entitled to sell the subject goods to the third parties.
The Court further held that the court while exercising powers under Section 9 of the A&C Act cannot grant interim relief in the nature of specific performance when it will undoubtedly and obviously be the essential claim and relief that the petitioner will seek in the arbitral proceedings.
Case Title: MALVINDER MOHAN SINGH v. ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE & ANR
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 445
The Delhi High Court has observed that extraordinary powers of High Court under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure are not meant to be exercised at the disposal of the affluent accused who do not leave any stone unturned to arm-twist the law of the land and administrative machinery to achieve their scrupulous ends.
Justice Chandra Dhari Singh dismissed a plea filed by Religare Finvest's ex Promoter, Malvinder Mohan Singh in connection with Religare Finvest scam case, challenging the order dated 7th December 2021 passed by the Trial Court which had dismissed his request to consult physically with his lawyers outside jail premises, while in custody, in order to prepare for proceedings before the Supreme Court, High Court and various district courts.
Case Title: NIRMAL JINDAL v. SHYAM SUNDER TYAGI & ORS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 446
Observing that the purpose of contempt jurisdiction is to uphold the majesty and dignity of the courts of law, the Delhi High Court has said that the democratic fabric of society will suffer if respect for the judiciary is undermined.
Justice Subramonium Prasad observed thus:
"The purpose of contempt jurisdiction is to uphold the majesty and dignity of the courts of law, since the respect and authority commanded by the courts of law are the greatest guarantee to an ordinary citizen and the democratic fabric of society will suffer if respect for the judiciary is undermined."
Title: JASBIR SINGH v. STATE
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 447
The Delhi High Court has observed that if the period of deprivation pending trial or disposal of criminal appeal becomes unduly long, the fairness assured by Article 21 of the Constitution of India would receive a jolt.
Justice Chandra Dhari Singh further added that the delay in disposal of criminal appeals pending in the High Court is matter of serious concern to all those involved in the administration of criminal justice.
Case Title: SHRI HARI SHAMSHER KAUSHIK v. SHRI JASBIR SINGH, MANAGING DIRECTOR, M/S ACCURA CARE PHARMACEUTICALS PVT. LTD.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 448
The Delhi High Court has observed that if no offence is attributed to the company, it is but the natural corollary, that its Directors and other persons responsible for the conduct of its business cannot be saddled with any liability.
Observing that the Company being arrayed as the accused must be found to have committed an offence, Justice Asha Menon added:
"Thereafter, through the legal fiction created by Section 141 of the N.I. Act, the Directors and other persons responsible for the conduct of its business also become vicarious liable."
62. Mere Pendency Of An Insolvency Petition Is Not A Bar To The Appointment Of The Arbitrator: Delhi High Court
Case Title: MILLENNIUM EDUCATION FOUNDATION V. EDUCOMP INFRASTRUCTURE AND SCHOOL MANAGEMENT LIMITED, ARB.P. 326 of 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 449
The High Court of Delhi has held that the mere pendency of an insolvency petition under Section 9 of the IBC is not a bar to the appointment of an arbitrator.
The Single Bench of Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva has held that merely because an insolvency petition is pending, it cannot be an embargo on the power of the Court to decide arbitration applications. It is only when the insolvency petition is admitted and the moratorium is declared that the proceedings under the Arbitration Act would be non-maintainable.
The Court further held merits or validity of the demand notice are not to be decided by the Court while exercising power under Section 11 of the A&C Act.
Case Title: ASHISH v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 450
The Delhi High Court has observed that merely because the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has initiated the process of proclamation or attachment proceedings under sec. 82 or 83 of Cr.PC despite the pendency of the anticipatory bail application before High Court, the same does not bar the consideration of such an application.
Section 82 contemplates procedure for issuing proclamation against a person absconding. Section 83 talks about attachment of property of person absconding.
Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta was dealing with an anticipatory bail application in an FIR registered under sec. 420, 467, 120B of IPC read with sec. 66D of the IT Act.
64. Order X CPC | Oral Examination Of Any Party To Suit Regarding Controversy Involved Therein Is A Matter Of Discretion: Delhi High Court
Case Title: DR VIMLA MENON AND ANOTHER v. GOPINATH MENON
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 451
The Delhi High Court has observed that under Order X of the Code of Civil Procedure, the question of whether any of the parties to the suit is required to be orally examined on any aspect relevant to the controversy is a matter of discretion.
Order X of the Code provides for the examination of parties by the Court.
Justice C Hari Shankar observed thus:
"A bare reading of Order X of the CPC makes it apparent that the question of whether any of the parties to the suit is required to be orally examined on any aspect relevant to the controversy is essentially a matter of discretion. Where a court feels that, in order to elucidate matters in controversy in the suit, oral examination of one or more of the parties to the suit is necessary, the court is empowered to so order."
64. Order XVA CPC | Mere Default In Payment Of Rent On Court's Direction Doesn't Justify Striking Off Defence Of Defaulting Tenant: Delhi High Court
Case Title: RASHI MISRA v. B KALYANA RAMAN
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 452
The Delhi High Court has observed that mere default in payment of rent as directed by the Court under Order XVA(1) of Code of Civil Procedure cannot, ipso facto, justify passing of an order striking off the defence of the defaulting tenant.
Justice C Hari Shankar was dealing with a plea challenging an order dated 07th December, 2019, passed in a civil suit by the Trial Court in which the petitioner was the defendant and the respondent was the plaintiff.
The impugned order adjudicated three applications preferred by the petitioner as the defendant under Order VII Rule 11 and sec. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure and under sec. 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Additionally, the impugned order struck off the defence of the petitioner, purportedly in exercise of jurisdiction under the proviso to Order XV-A(1) of the CPC.
65. Challenge By NHAI On Fee Fixation By Arbitral Tribunal, Delhi High Court Holds That Tribunal Can Fix Its Fees
Case Title: National Highway Authority of India versus MEP Chennai Bypass Toll Road Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 453
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the Arbitral Tribunal is permitted to fix its fee, if its appointment is made by way of an ad hoc agreement between the parties.
The Single Bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula held that where the Arbitral Tribunal has accepted its appointment outside the mandate of the International Centre for Alternative Dispute Resolution (ICADR), it is entitled to determine its fee and is not bound by ICADR Rules. The Court upheld the order of the Arbitral Tribunal fixing the arbitral fee separately for the claims and the counter-claims. The Court added that the Arbitral Tribunal's observations that the arbitral fee is to be determined in terms of the Fourth Schedule of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), does not mean that the fee has to be charged cumulatively on the claims and counter-claims.
66. Deferment Charges On Liquidated Damages, No Liability To Pay When Liquidated Damages Itself Not Payable : Delhi High Court
Case Title: Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. (HVPNL) v. Cobra Instalaciones Y Services Sa and Shyam Indus Power Solution Pvt. Ltd. JV
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 454
The High Court of Delhi has held that there would be no question of recovery of deferment charges on the liquidated damages when the liquidated damages are themselves not payable.
The Single Bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru has held that deferment charges cannot be treated as separate charges payable irrespective of whether the liquidated damages are payable or not.
The Court held that these would only be payable when the liquidated damages are held to be payable.
67. Time Of 8 Hours To File Reply To Show Cause Notice, Not Reasonable: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Rahul Biala Vs ITO
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 455
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma has held that the time of eight hours to file a reply to the show cause notice was neither reasonable nor effective. The assessee could not have provided relevant information and documents to establish his case in such a short period of time.
The petitioner/assessee submitted that the reasonable time was not given to file a reply to the show cause notice, which was issued only on March 30th, 2022 at 16:21 p.m., effectively giving the petitioner only eight hours' time to file a reply to the show cause notice.
68. Delhi High Court Dismisses With Cost Plea Filed By Former CBI Head M Nageswara Rao Against Removal Of His Twitter Verification Tag
Case title - M. Nageswara Rao v. Union of India and Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 456
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday dismissed with a cost of Rs. 25,000 the plea filed by former Central Bureau of Investigation head and Retired IPS Officer M. Nageswara Rao against the decision of microblogging website Twitter to remove his verification tag, also known as blue tick from his account.
Justice Yashwant Varma was of the view that a similar plea with identical prayers was disposed of by the Court vide order dated April 7, 2022, by giving liberty to Rao to reapply for verification.
Consequently, Rao had, in compliance of the said order, reapplied for the Verification Tag last month. However, Rao was aggrieved about the fact that Twitter had not re-instated the Verification Tag attached to his twitter handle till date.
69. Delhi High Court Appoints Expert To Assist On Fair Use Of Sound Recordings In Marriage Ceremonies U/S 52(1)(za) Of Copyright Act
Case Title: PHONOGRAPHIC PERFORMANCE LIMITED v. LOOKPART EXHIBITIONS AND EVENTS PRIVATE LIMITED
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 457
The Delhi High Court has appointed Dr. Arul George Scaria as an expert to assist it in the interpretation of sec. 52(1)(za) of the Copyright Act, 1957 to the extent of fair use and fair dealing of sound recordings in marriage ceremonies and weddings.
Dr. Scaria is the Associate Professor of Law and Co-Director, Centre for Innovation, IP and Competition at National law University, Delhi.
Justice Pratibha M Singh was of the view that the issue raised would have large scale implications for artists such as lyricists, music composers, singers, sound recording producers and owners on the one hand as also, for entities involved in the organisation and management of weddings and other social events.
70. 'No Different From Offering Freebies': Delhi HC Dismisses Challenge To Practice Of Political Parties Promising "Cash Benefits" In Election Manifestos
Case Title: Parashar Narayan Sharma v. Union of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 458
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a PIL challenging the alleged practice of political parties offering cash benefits in lieu of votes during elections.
A Division Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Navin Chawla was of the view that the issue has already been considered by the Supreme Court in S. Subramaniam Balaji v. State of Tamil Nadu, and the present case is no different.
In Subramaniam Balaji (supra), the issue of political parties promising freebies to voters if elected to powers was raised. In the said judgement, the Top Court had directed the Election Commission to frame guidelines, in consultation with all the recognized political parties, that directly govern the contents of the election manifesto.
71. 'Will Confuse Clients': Delhi High Court Grants Ad Interim Ex-Parte Injunction In Favour Of Law Firm Against Use Of Deceptively Similar Mark
Case Title: SINGH & SINGH LAW FIRM L.L.P & ANR. v. SINGH & SINGH LAW, PLLC & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 459
Delhi High Court recently granted ad-interim ex-parte injunction in favour of "Singh and Singh Law Firm LLP" against a company namely Singh and Singh Law, PLLC and two others, on grounds that the names are deceptively similar and can cause a confusion in the minds of clients in India and abroad.
Present suit was instituted by the Plaintiffs, aggrieved by the use of the name "Singh & Singh", "Singh & Singh Law", "Singh & Singh Law, PLLC" and other derivatives, by Defendants No. 1 to 3.
72. Court Exercising Contempt Jurisdiction Is Meant To Uphold Majesty Of Law, Can't Sit In Appeal Of Orders Passed By Lower Courts: Delhi High Court
Case Title: SUDESH CHHIKARA v. DR. NAVEEN AGGARWAL AND ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 460
The Delhi High Court has observed that a Court exercising contempt jurisdiction is meant to uphold the majesty of law and that it cannot sit in appeal of the Orders passed by the lower Courts and Tribunals.
Justice Subramonium Prasad added that the contempt jurisdiction is invoked to ensure that public respect and confidence in the judicial process remains impaired.
"This jurisdiction is sui generis and allows the Court to exercise such power to punish a person who is guilty of contempt for the sole purpose of preventing non-adherence of the rule of law. In order to exercise such jurisdiction, the Courts must act judicially, and must not be hypersensitive. Once the essentials for initiation of contempt proceedings are satisfied, the Court must proceed with the contempt so as to uphold the majesty of law," the Court added.
73. Delhi High Court Grants Ex-Parte Ad Interim Injunction In Favour Of Burger King In Trademark Infringement Suit
Case Title: BURGER KING CORPORATION v. SWAPNIL PATIL & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 461
The Delhi High Court has recently granted ex parte ad interim injunction in favour of 'BURGER KING' in the trademark infringement suit filed by it against the defendants alleging that they were misusing, its registered trademarks and also engaging in registering infringing domain names incorporating the trademark 'BURGER KING' and operating fake websites without its permission and authorisation.
Justice Jyoti Singh thus restrained the defendants from advertising, offering any goods or services, using or registering corporate names, domain names or pages bearing the trademarks BURGER KING, BK or any mark deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's trademarks.
The Court also directed disclosure of the WHOIS details with respect to the domain names www.burgerkingfranchises.co.in and www.burgerkingfranchises.in and blocking access to the same.
74. Injunction Has To Follow Where Trademark Infringement Is Established, Concurrent & Honest Use No Defence: Delhi High Court
Case Title: KEI INDUSTRIES LIMITED v. MR. RAMAN KWATRA & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 462
The Delhi High Court has observed that where a case of infringement is made out, an injunction has to necessarily follow and that it is no defence to the defendant to urge that the user of the allegedly infringing mark was honest and concurrent.
Justice C Hari Shankar, who found a prima facie case in favour of Kei Industries Limited for an interlocutory injunction, thus restrained the defendants, or anyone acting for their behalf from using the impugned mark 'KEI' in relation to any electrical goods or instruments, including electrical fans, room coolers, geysers, electric heating apparatus etc., pending disposal of the suit.
75. Mere Expiry Of Employee's Deputation Period Does Not Divest Disciplinary Authority From Initiating Enquiry For Misconduct: Delhi High Court
Case Title: N.D. TYAGI v. POWER FINANCE CORPORATION LTD. & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 463
The Delhi High Court has observed that merely because the period of deputation of an employee may have come to an end, it would not divest the Disciplinary Authority of the company, Power Finance Corporation Limited (PFCL) in the present matter, from initiating an enquiry.
Justice Yashwant Varma dismissed a petition filed by a man, employed as an Executive Director in the Power Finance Corporation Limited, challenging a chargesheet wherein he was proposed to be proceeded against in disciplinary action in accordance with the provisions made in Rules 28 and 30 of the Power Finance Corporation Limited (Conduct Discipline and Appeal) Rules.
76. NEET-UG Mandatory For Admissions To BSc In Military Nursing Service: Delhi High Court Dismisses Plea Challenging NTA Notification
Case Title: SALONI YADAV & ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 464
The Delhi High Court recently dismissed a plea filed by aspirants seeking admission in Military Nursing Service courses, challenging the notification issued by the National Testing Agency that made clearing of NEET-UG examination a prerequisite.
Justice Rekha Palli dismissed the contention that the exam pattern was changed last minute on account of the extension granted by the NTA to apply for the NEET-UG exam and that candidates will get more than two months' time to prepare and appear in the exam.
77. 'Atlantis Resorts Enjoy Enormous Global Reputation': Delhi High Court Grants Interim Injunction Against Use Of Infringing Marks
Case Title : KERZNER INTERNATIONAL LIMITED v VIKAS AGGARWAL & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 465
The Delhi High Court recently granted injunction in favour of Kerzner International, a company which owns the chain of Atlantis resorts in Dubai, Bahamas and China, against one Vokas Aggarwal using the mark 'Atlantis Park Ballroom' in respect of a banquet hall.
Though the resort is not situated in India, Justice Prathiba M Singh observed,
" Plaintiff's mark 'ATLANTIS', owing to the unique nature of the resorts which are run by it, have prima facie, gained enormous global reputation, especially in the Indian subcontinent. "
78. "If Citizens Claim Environment As Their Own, Wonders Could Happen": Delhi High Court Bats For Community Participation For Preservation Of Trees
Case Title: APARNA BHAT v. SAKSHI SINGH & ORS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 466
The Delhi High Court has called for community participation for the purpose of preservation of trees, while asking the land-owning agencies to consider engaging RWAs and citizens' groups in the nurturing and preservation of trees.
"When citizens claim the environment as their own and participate in its preservation and rejuvenation, wonders could happen. The efforts of governmental agencies would receive an immense boost and positive results are likely to be visible sooner than one would anticipate," Justice Najmi Waziri added.
79. AO & PCIT Failed To Consider Balance Of Convenience And Irreparable Injury While Deciding The Stay Application: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Seven Seas Hospitality Private Limited Versus PCIT
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 467
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma has held that neither the Assessing Officer nor the Principal Commissioners of Income Tax (PCIT) have considered the three basic principles, i.e., the prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury, while deciding the stay application.
The petitioner company/assessee filed an application for a stay of demand under Section 220(6) of the Income Tax Act for the assessment years 2013-14 to 2019-20 on the ground that the appeal filed by the petitioner before the CIT (A) against the additions made by the department was pending adjudication. The assessee was under financial stress on account of the COVID-19 pandemic. The accounts of the assessee have been declared as NPA by all the banks due to non-payment of principal instalment and interest to the banks.
80. Delhi High Court Directs Designated Committee To Manually Process Payments Of Assessee Under SVLDR Scheme
Case Title: SDB Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Versus Ministry of Finance
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 468
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Poonam A. Bamba has directed the designated committee to manually process payments of an assessee under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (SVLDRS).
The petitioner/assessee, while taking recourse to the SVLDRS to avail the benefits provided, had attempted to remit the "amount declared" electronically. The only reason remittance could not go through was that there was a miniscule discrepancy between the figure mentioned in the Icegate challan and the amount that was sought to be transmitted.
81. Rejected Claims By Resolution Professional In Insolvency Proceedings, To Be Decided By The Arbitrator: Delhi High Court
Case Title: BHARAT PETRORESOURCES LIMITED v. JSW ISPAT SPECIAL PRODUCTS LIMITED
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 469
The High Court of Delhi held that the claims rejected by Resolution Professional in the insolvency proceedings on the ground that they arose after the Insolvency Commencement Date (ICD), are to be decided by the arbitrator.
The Court held that extinguishment of claims that arose after the Insolvency Commencement Date (ICD) is a contentious issue that is to be decided by the arbitrator when the parties have an arbitration agreement.
The Court reiterated that the scope under Section 11 of the A&C Act is confined to the examination of the existence of the arbitration agreement. The Court is not to decide any contentious issue while exercising powers under Section 11 of the Act.
82. Applicability Of S.148 NI Act Will Extend To Appeals Arising Out Of Complaint Cases Filed Prior To 2018 Amendment: Delhi High Court
Case Title: HARSH SEHGAL v. STATE & ANR
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 470
The Delhi High Court has observed that the applicability of Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 will be extended to appeals arising out of complaint cases that have been filed prior to the amendment of 2018.
Justice Chandra Dhari Singh was dealing with a batch of pleas seeking setting aside of order dated 5th February, 2022 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Saket Courts.
It was argued by the petitioners that sec. 148 of the NI Act was never intended to be made applicable to all pending appeals but only for the appeals which were filed after the amendment came into force. It was added that the that the amended provisions are not retrospective for appeals filed prior to the amendment.
83. Trial Court Has Power To Modify Orders Of Custody & Disposal Of Property Pending Trial U/S 451 CrPC As Per Changed Circumstances: Delhi High Court
Case Title: SANDEEP SINGH v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 471
The Delhi High Court has observed that the Trial Court would not be powerless to modify orders of custody and disposal of property pending trial as provided under sec. 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as per changed circumstances.
Justice Asha Menon added that the power to modify orders passed under sec. 451 Cr.P.C. is inherent in the provision as the purpose is only safe custody and production "during trial".
84. Delhi Govt Can't Implement Doorstep Ration Delivery Scheme Without LG's Approval: High Court
Case Title: DELHI SARKARI RATION DEALERS SANGH DELHI v. COMMISSIONER FOOD AND SUPPLIES GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 472
While setting aside the Delhi government's scheme for doorstep delivery of ration, the Delhi High Court has observed that the decision of the Council of Ministers headed by Delhi Chief Minister to roll out the said scheme cannot be described as an Executive action taken by, or in the name of the Lieutenant Governor.
The Court reasoned that the same cannot be done since the LG had expressed his disagreement, which stood unresolved as the scheme was placed before the President.
A division bench comprising of Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Jasmeet Singh thus quashed the three tenders issued by the Delhi Government in respect of the doorstep ration delivery scheme.
Read Also: Right To Dignity Not Offended Merely By Queuing Up At Fair Price Shop: High Court On Quashing Delhi Govt's Doorstep Ration Delivery Scheme
85. "No Other Way To Mitigate Ecological & Environmental Degradation In City": High Court Stays Felling Of Trees In Delhi As An Interim Measure
Case Title: NEERAJ SHARMA v. VINAY SHEEL SAXENA & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 473
As an interim measure, the Delhi High Court on Thursday stayed further felling of trees in the city observing that there is no other way to mitigate the ecological and environmental degradation.
Justice Najmi Waziri, who was hearing a contempt plea concerning felling of trees, stayed the said exercise by the authorities till June 2, the next date of hearing.
Noting that ex-facie, it was evident that the large scale denudation of fully grown trees only worsens the ecological balance in the city, the Court ordered thus:
"It would therefore be in the fitness of things and in the public interest as well as for the sake of environment of present as well as future generations that tree felling in Delhi is not permitted till the next date so as to ensure that felling is done only when it is fully assured by the applicant that the trees would atleast be transplanted."
86. "No Infirmity": High Court Upholds Delhi Police's Standing Order Mandating Inclusion Of Advocate's Details In Criminal Dossier Of Accused
Case Title: SAURABH AGARWAL v. STATE OF GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 474
The Delhi High Court has upheld a standing order issued by the city police mandating inclusion of Advocates' details in Criminal Dossier of an accused, observing that there was no infirmity in the same.
A division bench comprising of Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Navin Chawla was of the view that merely because particulars of the advocate may be entered into the confidential record, it does not follow that such an advocate would be hounded or put under surveillance.
"The purpose of the Criminal Dossier is merely to record the particulars of the accused, including the name of the advocate who may be representing such an accused. Merely for this reason alone, it cannot not be said that the Standing Order suffers from any infirmity or violates any Fundamental Rights of the accused, as enshrined in the Constitution of India. The said information is not placed in public domain. It is confidential," the bench added.
87. Non Consideration Of Detailed Reply To Show Cause Notice Submitted After Stipulated Time, Delhi High Court Quashes Reassessment Order
Case Title: Divya Capital One Private Limited Vs. ACIT
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 475
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma has quashed the reassessment order, alleging income of more than Rupees one lakh crore having escaped assessment on the grounds of violation of natural justice.
The petitioner/assessee has submitted that the order under Section 148A (d) of the Income Tax Act was passed without considering the replies filed by the petitioner to the show cause notice.
The petitioner filed a preliminary response to the show cause notice in which she objected to the validity of legal notice under Section 148A(b) on the grounds that there was no evidence that income had escaped assessment.
88. Right To Lead Evidence May Be Closed If Party Acts In 'Recalcitrant Fashion', Unjustifiably Refuses To Produce Witnesses For Examination: Delhi HC
Case Title: M/S BHARAT INVESTMENT CORPORATION v. SMT. SANJANA SAINI
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 476
The Delhi High Court has observed that where a party is acting in a recalcitrant fashion, and refusing to make the witness available for examination or cross- examination on repeated occasions without due justification, the court may close the party's right to lead evidence.
Justice C Hari Shankar added that while it is a matter of Court's discretion which takes a call on the request of the party to lead evidence and that the Court may be ill-inclined in a petition under Article 227 to interfere, it said that such principle applies equally to the Court which passed the order under challenge as to the Court which is seized of the challenge under Article 227.
89. Initiation Of Reassessment Proceedings By Income Tax Officer Without Jurisdiction: Delhi High Court Quashes The Proceedings
Case Title: Indus Tower Ltd. Versus ITO
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 477
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma held that since the petitioner jurisdictional Assessing Officer is headquartered in Delhi, the income tax officer from Jaipur had no authority to send a notice proposing the beginning of reassessment proceedings.
The petitioner/assessee challenged the order passed by the Income Tax Officer under Section 148A (d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the initiation of reassessment proceedings.
The petitioner contended that there was no valid jurisdiction with the Income Tax Officer located at Jaipur for the issuance of notice or proposed initiation of reassessment proceedings. The jurisdiction over the petitioner lies solely with the Income Tax Officer at New Delhi.
90. Doctors' Strike | Can't Initiate Disciplinary Action In Absence Of Actual Events Of Patients' Suffering, Media Reports Not Sufficient: Delhi HC
Case Title: People for Better Treatment v. National Medical Commission
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 478
The Delhi High Court has refused to issue orders for initiation of action against doctors alleged to be involved in the November 2021 strike.
Disposing of the public interest litigation filed by a Kolkata based NGO namely 'People for Better Treatment', a Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Sachin Datta observed,
" In our view, before any disciplinary action can be taken, it would be necessity for complainant who must first approach the State Medical Council to make out specific grievance based on actual events since that would be necessary for State Medical Council to initiate disciplinary action against an identified doctor who may have gone on strike,"
91. Not Feasible To Entertain Plea Relating To Road Development Work In Madhya Pradesh Merely Because Ministry Office Is In Delhi: High Court
Case Title: Intercontinental Consultants v. Ministry of Road & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 479
The Delhi High Court has expressed its distinction to hear a matter pertaining to debarment of a contractor by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways of India, in connection with its alleged failure to perform the road development work in Madhya Pradesh.
The plea was filed in the Delhi High Court by Intercontinental Consultants, stating that the head office of the Ministry is in Delhi and the competent authority which issued the SOP under which the order debarring the appellant was issued also has its office in Delhi. Since a single Judge had refused to entertain the matter, the instant appeal was preferred.
92. CNN News: Delhi High Court Awards ₹3 Lacs Compensation In Trademark Infringement Suit, Grants Permanent Injunction Against Use Of Identical Marks
Case Title: CABLE NEWS NETWORK INC v. MR FAYYAZ SHAIKH & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 480
While dealing with a trademark infringement suit filed by Cable News Network (CNN) news channel, the Delhi High Court has granted permanent injunction against various entities over use of identical mark 'CNN' while providing similar news services.
Justice Pratibha M Singh also awarded Rs. 3 lakhs cost in favour of CNN news channel, observing that its rights in the mark 'CNN' were undisputed and unchallenged and that the same had been declared as a well-known mark.
"Thus, the use of an identical mark for identical services is clear infringement of the Plaintiff's rights in the 'CNN' mark. There can be no justification for the Defendants to use an identical mark," the Court said.
93. No Opportunity Of Personal Hearing Granted To Taxpayer: Delhi High Court Quashes Assessment Order
Case Title: Omkar Nath Versus National Faceless Assessment Centre
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 481
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Talwant Singh has quashed the assessment order as an opportunity of personal hearing was not granted to the taxpayer.
The petitioner/assessee had filed his return of income for AY 2018-2019 on 31.03.2019. The petitioner pegged his taxable income at Rs. 29,66,880.
The Assessing Officer picked up the petitioner's case for scrutiny and issued a notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act. Apparently, the AO had also issued several notices under Section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act between 24.11.2020 and 15.02.2021.
94. The Arbitrator Cannot Allow Forfeiture Of A Substantial Amount Of Consideration Without Proof Of Actual Loss Solely On The Ground That It Was Earnest Money: Delhi High Court
Case Title: RAJESH GUPTA v. RAM AVTAR, O.M.P. (COMM) 121/2020
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 482
The High Court of Delhi has held that the arbitrator cannot allow forfeiture of a substantial amount of consideration without the proof of actual loss solely on the ground that it was referred to as Earnest Money under the contract.
The Single Bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru partly set aside an award on the ground that the arbitrator wrongly allowed the forfeiture of Earnest Money which formed a substantial portion of the total consideration without the respondent proving actual loss suffered by it.
95. Licensing Of Software Products By Microsoft Is Not Taxable In India As Royalty: Delhi High Court
Case Title: CIT Versus Microsoft Corporation
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 483
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain has ruled that licensing of software products by Microsoft in the Territory of India by Microsoft is not taxable in India as royalty.
The department had challenged the order passed by the ITAT for the assessment years 1997-98 and 1999-2000. The ITAT ruled that the licencing of software products of Microsoft in the Territory of India by the respondent/assessee, i.e., Microsoft, was not taxable in India as royalty under Section 9(1)(vi) of the Income Tax Act read with Article 12 of the Indo-US Direct Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA).
96. Minimum 7 Days Time Has To Be Granted To The Taxpayer To File Reply To The Show Cause Notice: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Shri Sai Co-operative Thrift and Credit Society Ltd Versus ITO
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 484
The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma has held that under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, a minimum time of seven days has to be granted to the assessee to file reply to the show cause notice.
The petitioner/assessee has challenged the Notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the consequential order issued under Section 148A(d) and notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act.
The department has issued a notice to petitioner under clause (b) of Section 148A of the Income Tax Act on 22nd March, 2022 on the ground that the petitioner had made cash deposits in its bank accounts but had not filed its Income Tax Return. The Petitioner was asked to furnish a reply to the notice on or before 25th March, 2022. The Petitioner duly replied to the said notice on 25th March, 2022 clearly explaining that all the cash deposited by the petitioner was received from the members of the society. The petitioner had also explained that KYC of all the members were properly done and books of accounts of the Petitioner were duly audited and were furnished to the Registrar of Companies.
97. Temperance & Dignity In Language Absolute Essence In Pleadings Filed In Judicial Proceedings: Delhi High Court
Case Title: M/S SRI SHYAM INCORPORATION & ANR. v. M/S SHREE BALAJI INDUSTRIES
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 485
The Delhi High Court has observed that temperance and dignity in language is of absolute essence in pleadings filed in judicial proceedings.
Justice C Hari Shankar further added thus:
"It is not permissible for any litigant, especially in a petition filed through Counsel, to attribute qualities such as obstinacy to a judicial forum. Courts do not pass orders based on personal predilections, but to conform to the correct position in law as they perceive it to be."
98. Implement Order On Nurses' Salary In Pvt Hospitals Before July 12 : High Court Warns Delhi Govt Of Contempt Action
Title: INDIAN PROFESSIONAL NURSES THROUGH ITS JOINT SECRETARY SIJU THOMAS v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 486
The Delhi High Court has pulled up the Delhi Government for not implementing an earlier order passed by it in the year 2019 regarding payment of nurses working in private hospitals as well as nursing homes.
Observing that the conduct of the Delhi Government could be construed as wilful disobedience of judicial orders, Justice Subramonium Prasad expressed dissatisfaction by ordering thus:
"It is expected that the GNCTD shall comply with the Order dated 22.07.2019 before the next date of hearing. In case the said Order is not complied with, the concerned Officers are directed to be present in the Court to explain as to why contempt proceedings under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 should not be initiated against the erring Officers."
The next date of hearing is July 12, 2022.
99. Person Invoking Article 226 Jurisdiction Must Come With Clean Hands, Must Disclose Complete & Correct Facts: Delhi High Court
Case Title: ASSOCIATION OF MD PHYSICIANS v. NATIONAL BOARD OF EXAMINATION & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 487
The Delhi High Court has observed that a person approaching the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution must come with a pair of clean hands, adding that there must be disclosure of full, complete and correct facts.
A division bench comprising of Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Navin Chawla also observed that a petitioner should not suppress any material facts and also not take repeated or parallel recourse to legal proceedings.
The Court made the observations while dealing with an appeal challenging the judgment of a Single Judge dismissing the petition filed by Association of MD Physicians with cost of Rs.25,000.
100. Detention Order A Preventive Measure, Sense Of Urgency Is Must, Failure To Serve/ Detain At Earliest Possible Defeats Its Purpose: Delhi High Court
Case Title: ABHISHEK GUPTA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 488
The Delhi High Court has observed that the purpose of detention order is a preventive measure and if the detenu is not served or detained at the earliest possible, keeping in view the spirit of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, the purpose is defeated.
A division bench comprising of Justice Siddharth Mridul and Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta quashed the detention order issued under sec. 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA Act) to detain the petitioner in custody for a period of one year.
Apart from challenging the detention order, the petitioner had also challenged the further order under sec. 7(1)(b) of the COFEPOSA Act, 1974 directing him to appear before the Commissioner of Police, Delhi within seven days of the publication of the detention order.
101. Delhi HC Dismisses Students' Plea Requiring GGSIP University To Provide Certified Copies Of Answer Scripts As Per Fee Prescribed Under RTI Rules
Case Title: AKRITI AGGARWAL & ANR. v. GURU GOBIND SINGH INDRAPRASTHA UNIVERSITY THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 489
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a plea filed by two final year law students seeking directions on Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University for providing certified copies of answer-scripts to students as per the fee prescribed under the RTI Rules, 2012 at candidate's request.
A division bench comprising of Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Sachin Datta however clarified that the Court has not examined the issue as to whether the charges or fee prescribed by the University of Rs. 1,500 per examination answer sheet is excessive, or could be said to defeat the right to obtain information, as no challenge was raised to the prescription of the said fee under its Rules.
Filed by Akriti Agarwal and Lakshya Purohit through Advocate Paras Jain, the plea sought a direction in compliance of the Supreme Court judgment in the case titled ICSI v. Paras Jain wherein it was held that if a candidate seeks information under the RTI Act, then payment has to be sought under the rules made therein.
102. Waiver Under Section 12(5) Of A&C Act Has To Be By An Express Agreement In Writing: Delhi High Court
Case Title: AK Builders versus Delhi State Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 490
The Delhi High Court has ruled that any right under Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), that deals with the ineligibility of certain persons to be appointed as an arbitrator, can be waived of only by an express Agreement in writing entered into after the disputes had arisen between the parties.
The Single Bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru dismissed the contention that since the petitioner had participated in the arbitral proceedings it was precluded from raising any objections towards the appointment of the Arbitrator. The Court reiterated that a person who is ineligible to act as an arbitrator would also be ineligible to appoint an arbitrator.
103. 'Can't Encourage Such Dishonest Conduct': Delhi High Court Awards ₹10 Lakh Damages To Blue Heaven Cosmetics For Trademark Infringement
Case Status: M/S Blue Heaven Cosmetics Pvt. Ltd v. Shivani Cosmetics
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 491
In the case of competing trademarks of a cosmetics range, the Delhi High Court awarded damages of Rs. 10 lakh to M/s Blue Heaven Cosmetics Pvt. Ltd. Looking at the similarity of the defendant's product to the Blue Heaven range, Justice Pratibha M. Singh remarked,
"...this is not a case of innocent adoption, and the Court cannot encourage such dishonest conduct on behalf of the Defendant. Thus, taking a reasonable assessment of the products which may have been sold by the Defendant, the present suit is decreed for Rs.10 lakhs as damages. In addition, Rs.2 lakhs is awarded as costs."
A suit was filed by M/s Blue Heaven Cosmetics Pvt. Ltd. seeking a permanent injunction restraining infringement of registered trademark, trade dress, copyright, writing style, color combination, label, packaging, passing off goods, delivery up, retention of account of profit along with further damages.
104. Delhi High Court Puts Affairs Of Hockey India In Hands Of Three Member Committee Of Administrators Comprising Of Former SC Judge
Case Title: ASLAM SHER KHAN v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 492
The Delhi High Court has put the affairs of Hockey India in the hands of Committee of Administrators (CoA) as per a recent Supreme Court order, observing that its administrative setup was erroneously or illegally constituted because of the Life President and Life Members.
A division bench comprising of Justice Najmi Waziri and Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma added thus:
"The Government of India cannot grant recognition to a NSF whose constitution is not in consonance with the Sports Code. The posts of Life President, Life Member in the NSF are illegal so is the post of CEO in the Managing Committee. These posts are struck-down. All such references in the Constitution/Memorandum of Association of R-2 will have to be removed."
The Court relied on the recent Supreme Court order in All India Football Federation vs. Rahul Mehra dated May 18, 2022.
105. Defendant In A Plaint Cannot Insist That Plaintiff Should Sue A Third Party: Delhi High Court
Case Title: AAA VEHICLEADES PVT LTD v. BALKISHAN GUPTA
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 493
The Delhi High Court has observed that a defendant in a plaint cannot insist that the plaintiff should sue a third party, adding that he can only defend the plaint qua the allegations against him.
Justice C Hari Shankar added that the defendant cannot insist that the plaintiff should sue a party whom the plaintiff has not chosen to sue. The Court added that if the plaintiff fails to sue a necessary party, it would be at the risk and cost of the plaintiff.
"A defendant in a plaint cannot insist that the plaintiff should sue a third party. He can only defend the plaint qua the allegations against him. It is open to a defendant to contest his liability, qua the plaintiff, and, in an appropriate case, the defendant may also be entitled to move an application for rejection of the suit outright, if it fails to make out any sustainable cause of action against the plaintiff invoking, for the purpose, Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC," the Court observed.
106. PUMA Trademark Infringement Suit: Delhi High Court Directs Google To Remove 'PUMA GUARD' App From Play Store
Case Title: PUMA SE v. HI-TEC POINT TECHNOLOGIES P. LTD. AND ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 494
The Delhi High Court has directed Google LLC to remove the application 'PUMA GUARD' from its Google Play Store while dealing with a trademark infringement suit filed by 'PUMA'.
Justice Pratibha M Singh was dealing with a suit filed by the Plaintiff PUMA SE seeking protection of its mark 'PUMA' which was coined and adopted by it internationally in 1948.
'PUMA' is one of the world's leading sports brand designing, developing, selling and marketing footwear, apparel and accessories. The mark 'PUMA' has been used in India from 1980's onwards and the same is registered under several classes.
The Defendant No.1 M/s Hi-Tech Point Technologies Pvt. Ltd. started a GPS service through electronic application by the name 'PUMA GUARD'. Defendant No.2 Black Box GPS Technology OPC Pvt. Ltd. also launched a device with GPS tracking and anti-theft capabilities under the mark 'PUMA'.
107. Kalkaji Temple Redevelopment: Delhi High Court To Direct Final Vacation Of Dharamshala Premises By All Occupants On June 1
Case Title: NEETA BHARDWAJ & ORS. v. KAMLESH SHARMA
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 495
Observing that redevelopment of city's Kalkaji Temple can commence only if all persons who are in occupation of dharamshalas vacate the said premises, the Delhi High Court has said that it will direct final vacation of the same by all occupants on June 1.
Justice Pratibha M Singh, who was dealing with a bunch of pleas concerning the aspect of maintenance and redevelopment of the temple, added that the pujaris or baridaars who are occupying the dharamshalas shall make submissions before the Court concerning the timelines of such vacation on the said date.
"The pujaris/baridaars shall submit their suggestions with regard to the redevelopment, to the ld. Administrator within 15 days of obtaining the layout plan. Pursuant to the same, such parties shall appear before the ld. Administrator on 4th June, 2022 at 5 P.M., by which time all the suggestions of the pujaris/baridaars shall be submitted. On the said date, the ld. Administrator would consider the suggestions given with respect to the redevelopment of the Kalkaji Mandir," the Court added.
108. Delhi High Court Asks Sharjeel Imam To Approach Trial Court Seeking Interim Bail In Sedition FIR
Case Title: Sharjeel Imam v. The State of NCT of Delhi
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 496
The Delhi High Court on Thursday granted liberty to Sharjeel Imam to approach the Trial Court seeking interim bail in an FIR against him involving the offence of Sedition under sec. 124A of Indian Penal Code, in view of recent Apex Court order wherein the sedition law has been kept in abeyance till the Union Government reconsiders the provision.
The development came after Special Public Prosecutor Amit Prasad raised a preliminary objection on the maintainability of the interim bail application before the High Court, submitting that according to a 2014 Supreme Court ruling, the bail application has to be moved in the first instance before the Special Court and if aggrieved, an appeal would thereafter lie before the High Court.
109. 'Can't Direct Legislature To Amend/ Broaden Any Law': High Court Dismisses Plea To Include Group A, B, C & D Officers Under Delhi Lokayukta Act
Case Title: Help India Against Corruption v. Union of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 497
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation seeking inclusion of Group A, B C and D officers of the Delhi government within the scope and ambit of the Delhi Lokayukta and Uplokayukta Act, 1995.
A Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Sachin Datta observed that it is not for the Courts to issue a writ of mandamus to the legislature to either enact or amend the law in a particular way, as may be required by the Petitioner.
" A government functionary indulging in corruption activities, first of all it is a Criminal offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act. He is also subject to departmental inquiry. So it is all covered...We can quash a law if it is unconstitutional. We can interpret the law. But we cannot direct enactment of the law," Justice Sanghi said.
110. Taxpayers Have Independent Statutory Right To File A Reply To Show Cause Notice And Draft Assessment Order: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Ketan Ribbons Pvt Ltd Vs National Faceless Assessment Centre Delhi
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 498
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Preetam Singh Arora, while directing the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) to pass the fresh assessment order, held that the taxpayers have an independent statutory right to file a reply to the show cause notice and draft assessment order.
The Assessing Officer had extended the timeframe for filing objections to the show cause notice and draft assessment order dated April 22nd, 2021, from April 26th, 2021, to May 17th, 2021. The Assessing Officer proceeded to pass the assessment order dated May 23, 2021 under Section 143 (3) read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in violation of the principle of natural justice.
111. NEET-UG Mandatory For Admissions To BSc Nursing: Delhi High Court Dismisses Plea Challenging NTA Notification
Case Title: M/S Chhavi & Ors v. Union of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 499
The Delhi High Court recently dismissed an appeal pertaining to admission in B.Sc. Nursing courses, challenging the notification issued by the National Testing Agency (NTA) that made clearing of NEET-UG examination a prerequisite. The appeal was preferred from the order of a Single Judge, refusing to interfere in the matter.
A Division Bench bench of Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Sachin Datta noted that the case of the appellants is no different from the earlier decided case of Saloni Yadav where it was held that there is no infirmity in NTA's decision to include a mandatory eligibility condition of qualifying the NEET-UG as a pre-condition for admission in Military Nursing Service courses.
It held that merely because the appellants are desirous of competing for B.Sc. (Nursing) as opposed to the Military Nursing Service, it makes no difference. It noted that the distinctions sought to be drawn by the appellants between the courses are wholly irrelevant.
112. Real Estate Appellate Authority Can't Initiate Suo Moto Proceedings: Delhi High Court
Case Title: PRAVEEN CHHABRA v. REAL ESTATE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 500
The Delhi High Court has held that the Real Estate Appellate Authority cannot possibly be recognized as conferred with the power to initiate proceedings suo moto or on its own motion.
Analyzing the relevant provisions of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, Justice Yashwant Varma added that the Appellate Tribunal is a creation of statute and that it is not an authority which may be recognised as being vested with inherent powers.
"Regard must also be had to the fact that the Appellate Tribunal is not part of the hierarchy of traditional judicial institutions which constitute the judicial system of our country. It is an appellate forum whose origin and formation stems from the provisions of the Act. It is in that sense an adjudicatory authority which owes its existence and authority to a special statute," the Court observed.
113. Titles Of Films Are Capable Of Being Recognised Under Trademark Law: Delhi High Court
Case Title: SHOLAY MEDIA ENTERTAINMENT AND ANR. v. YOGESH PATEL AND ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 501
The Delhi High Court has recently rejected a contention that titles of films cannot be registered under Trademark Law and has held that the word 'SHOLAY' being the title of an iconic film cannot be held to be a mark devoid of protection.
Justice Pratibha M Singh added that certain films cross the boundaries of just being ordinary words and the title of the film 'SHOLAY' is one of them.
"Titles and films are capable of being recognised under trademark law and in India 'SHOLAY' would be a classic example of such a case," the Court said.
It added,
"If there is one film that transcends generations of Indians, it is 'SHOLAY'. The said film, its characters, dialogues, settings, box office collections are legendary. Undoubtedly, 'SHOLAY' is one of the biggest, record-breaking films that India has ever produced, in the history of Indian cinema...The mention of the word 'SHOLAY' immediately creates a connection with the movie 'SHOLAY'. There are industry estimates which claim that, although the words 'SHOLAY' may have a dictionary meaning in Hindi (specifically, 'burning coal'), upon the movie going public, the word 'SHOLAY' came to be associated only with the film."
Thus, it awarded Rs.25,00,000/- as costs and damages to Sholay Media and Entertainment Pvt Ltd. and Sippy Films Pvt. Ltd. which holds rights in the film.
114. Plaintiff Is Not Entitled To Return Of Court Fees When The Parties Are Referred To Arbitration Under Section 8 Of The A&C Act: Delhi High Court
Case Title: A-One Realtors Pvt. Ltd. v. Energy Efficiency Services Ltd.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 502
The High Court of Delhi has held that the plaintiff is not entitled to return of Court Fess when the parties are referred to arbitration under Section 8 of the A&C Act.
The Single Bench of Justice Amit Bansal held that the benefit of Section 16[1] of the Court Fees Act would only be available to the plaintiff when the parties are referred to arbitration for settlement in terms of Section 89 of the CPC and not under Section 8 of the A&C Act.
115. "Judicial System, State Resources Burdened; Litigants Must Be Conscious Of Their Actions": Delhi HC Condemns Lodging FIRs On Frivolous Issues
Case Title: JAI KUMAR JAIN AND ORS v. STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 503
The Delhi High Court has condemned the practice of lodging FIRs on frivolous and minor issues, adding that the Judicial system and state resources are already heavily burdened and litigants must be conscious of their actions.
A single judge bench comprising of Justice Jasmeet Singh added that such an exercise is nothing but an abuse of the process of law which must be discouraged in its entirety.
"Parties before lodging an FIR, must have due regard as to not only the nature and gravity of what offences they are alleging but also the state and police resources that go into investigating those matters, which are ultimately put up before court to only be quashed," the Court said.
116. Intends To Encash Goodwill Of HT Media In Trademark 'Hindustan Times': Delhi High Court Grants Ex-Parte Ad Interim Injunction Against Rouge Website
Case Title: HT MEDIA LIMITED & ANR. v. WWW.HINDUSTANTIMES.TECH & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 504
The Delhi High Court has granted ex-parte ad interim injunction in favour of HT Media Limited which runs news publications in various languages under the registered trademark Hindustan Times, against a rogue website using a deceptively similar domain name.
Passing an ex parte ad interim injunction in favour of HT Media, Justice Pratibha M Singh restrained the use of www.hindustantimes.tech, consisting of the word 'Hindustan Times'. It also restrained the website from publishing any content including articles, stories, columns, reviews, etc., being in violation of HT Media's copyright.
117. Arbitrator Cannot Rewrite Terms Of The Agreement Merely Because It Flouts Business Common Sense: Delhi High Court
Case Title: UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS, RAILWAY BOARD & ANR. v. M/S JINDAL RAIL INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 505
The High Court of Delhi held that the arbitrator cannot re-write the terms of the agreement between the parties merely because they flout business common sense.
The Single Bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru has held that an award wherein the arbitrator re-work a bargain between the parties merely because it is commercially difficult for one party to perform the same would be against the fundamental policy of Indian Law and vitiated by patent illegality.
The Court held that when the agreement confers on one party the right to place an additional order on the same terms and conditions during the currency of the contract, the condition under the agreement must be given effect to and the arbitrator cannot negate the mandate of such a stipulation.
Case Title: Sanjay Roy versus Sandeep Soni & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 506
The Delhi High Court has held that an arbitral award that is not in consonance with the judicial decisions and principles laid down by the courts of India would be in violation of the fundamental policy of Indian law and thus in conflict with the public policy of India under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act).
The Bench, consisting of Justices Mukta Gupta and Neena Bansal Krishna, upheld the order of the Single Judge setting aside the arbitral award under Section 34 on the ground that the Arbitrator had failed to apply the basic fundamental law as contained in the Limitation Act, 1963 and the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
119. The Provisions For The Quantum Of Damages Under Land Acquisition Act, 2013 Would Apply To Arbitrations Under The Resettlement Of Displaced Persons (Land Acquisition) Act, 1948: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Rajinder Kumar Agarwal v. Union of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 507
The High Court of Delhi has held that the provisions for the quantum of damages under Land Acquisition Act, 2013 (LARR Act) would apply to arbitrations under the Resettlement of Displaced Persons (Land Acquisition) Act, 1948.
The Single Bench of Justice Navin Chawla has held that the provisions of the LARR Act being beneficial in nature would also apply to all the pending arbitrations under the Resettlement of Displaced Persons (Land Acquisition) Act.
The Court further held that only the provisions qua the quantum of compensation under the LARR Act are made applicable and the arbitrator appointed under Section 7 of the Resettlement of Displaced Persons (Land Acquisition) Act would continue to determine the amount of compensation and not the collector under the LARR Act.
120. Prosecution For Customs Duty Evasion Can't Be Initiated As The Valuation Of The Goods Is Less Than Rs.1 Crore: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Suresh Chand Gupta Versus State of Govt. Of NCT
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 508
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the prosecution of the petitioner cannot be initiated under Section 135(1)(a) of the Customs Act as valuation of the goods is less than Rs.1 Crore.
The single judge bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh has observed that the department has not examined any witness to prove its case against the petitioner. The Court below while passing the summoning order has not assigned any reason for summoning the petitioner.
The Director of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) filed a criminal complaint under Section 132 and 135 (1)(a) of the Customs Act, before the Trial Court. The complaint stated that intelligence reports have been received that M/s Elgin Electronics, of which petitioner was the Proprietor.
121. Can't Compel Party To File Documents On Which It Did Not Rely Except For Certain Specific Eventualities Mentioned In CPC: Delhi High Court
Case Title: KRISHAN KAKKAR v. KIRAN CHANDER
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 509
The Delhi High Court has observed that no Court can compel a party to file documents on which the party did not choose to rely, save and except in respect of certain specific eventualities for which provisions are contained in the Code of Civil Procedure.
Justice C Hari Shankar added that in any litigation, the choice of the documents which are to be brought on record is the sole prerogative of the party who files the documents.
The Court was dealing with a plea challenging orders dated 8th July, 2021 and 6th May, 2022, passed by the Additional District Judge in a civil suit.
The order dated 8th July, 2021 rejected an application filed by the petitioner, as the defendant in in the suit, seeking dismissal of the suit under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC. Towards the conclusion of the impugned order, the ADJ directed the respondent to file two documents.
122. Reluctance Of Judges To Conduct Virtual Proceedings Not In Alignment With Tech Advancements, Expected To Ensure System Is Put To Use: Delhi HC
Case Title: SANJAY SINGH v. SUKHPAL KAUR
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 510
Observing that the Courts have to march in sync with the latest developments in technology, the Delhi High Court has said that the reluctance of the judges to conduct virtual proceedings is not in alignment with the technological advancements.
Adding that the system of conducting Court proceedings through video conferencing is being encouraged by the Apex Court as well as the High Court, Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma observed thus:
"It is thus expected of the judges in the District Courts also to ensure that such a system of conducting the proceedings through video conferencing is put to usage. Virtual proceedings provide an opportunity to modernise the system by making it more affordable and citizen friendly, enabling the aggrieved and/or litigants to access justice from remote parts of the country and the world."
123. Matters Regarding Personal Liberty To Be Dealt Cautiously, Balance To Be Struck Between Respect For Fundamental Rights & Fair Investigation: Delhi HC
Case Title: NIZAMUDDIN KHAN v. THE STATE & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 511
The Delhi High Court has observed that matters regarding liberty of a person have to be dealt with cautiously and that a balance has to be struck between respect for his fundamental rights and free and fair investigation as well.
Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma made the observation while granting bail to a man in an FIR registered under sec. 376D, 506 and 34 of Indian Penal Code.
It was the case of the complainant, real sister of the petitioner, that the incident in question had allegedly taken place in March 2019. When a query was put to the counsel for the complainant regarding reason for the delay in lodging of the FIR, it was stated that since it was a sensitive relationship, at the instance of their father who had unfortunately passed away in October, 2021, the complainant did not lodge any complaint.
124. A Party Cannot Dispute The Jurisdiction On Account Of Non-Existence Of The Arbitration Agreement After Submitting Of The Jurisdiction Of The Arbitrator: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Amrish Gupta v. Gurchait Singh Chima
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 512
The High Court of Delhi held that a party cannot dispute the jurisdiction on account of non-existence of the arbitration agreement after submitting to the jurisdiction of the arbitrator.
The Single Bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru held that generally, the arbitration clause contained in the main agreement would also fall when the validity of the main agreement is challenged and the dispute would be non-arbitrable.
However, when a party agrees to refer the dispute to arbitration and chooses to dispute only the main agreement without laying any challenge to the arbitration clause, it is deemed to have waived its objections qua the arbitration clause and it cannot contend that the arbitrator had no jurisdiction to decide the dispute.