Citations 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1027 TO 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1134NOMINAL INDEXMedeor Hospital Ltd. Versus PCIT 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1027DR RAVI M NAIR & ANR. vs UNION OF INDIA & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1028GUJARAT COOPERATIVE MILK MARKETING FEDERATION LTD & ANR. v. MARUTI METALS & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1029DR. ZAFARUL ISLAM KHAN v. GOVT. OF NCT DELHI & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw...
Citations 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1027 TO 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1134
NOMINAL INDEX
Medeor Hospital Ltd. Versus PCIT 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1027
DR RAVI M NAIR & ANR. vs UNION OF INDIA & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1028
GUJARAT COOPERATIVE MILK MARKETING FEDERATION LTD & ANR. v. MARUTI METALS & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1029
DR. ZAFARUL ISLAM KHAN v. GOVT. OF NCT DELHI & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1030
KMA Caterers v. Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation (IRCTC) 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1031
Gangotri Enterprises Ltd. v. General Manager Northern Railways 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1032
BRIJ MOHAN SEHGAL v. PANKAJ SANGHI 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1033
SUNIL KUMAR PANDEY AND ANR v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1034
ANIL KUMAR v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1035
Samata Party v. ECI & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1036
Saurabh Bhardwaj v. Delhi Police & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1037
Vinod Kumar v. State and other connected matters 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1038
SUMIT DAGAR v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1039
FDC LIMITED v. NILRISE PHARMACEUTICALS PVT. LTD. AND ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1040
Babu Khan vs Union Of India & Anr 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1041
AJAY KUMAR MITTAL v. UOI & ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1042
Sotkon SP SLU v. Western Imaginary Transcon Private Limited and Others 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1043
M/S. M.M. TRADERS v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1044
Srishtii Infra Housing Pvt. Ltd. Versus PCIT 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1045
Consolidated Construction Consortium Limited v. SDMC 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1046
M/s Sequoia Fitness and Sports Technology Pvt. Ltd. versus GD Goenka Pvt. Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1047
Commissioner of Income Tax versus Somnath Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1048
SUJATA CHAUDHRI v. SWARUPA GHOSH 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1049
Axis Trusteeship Services Limited v. Brij Bhushan Singhal & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1050
ELSEVIER LTD. AND ORS. v. ALEXANDRA ELBAKYAN AND ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1051
MANISH GUPTA vs GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1052
ASHU & ORS v. THE REGISTRAR GENERAL, HIGH COURT OF DELHI AND ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1053
LOUIS VUITTON MALLETIER v. FUTURETIMES TECHNOLOGY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1054
SAROJINI NAGAR JHUGGI JHOPRI VIKAS SAMITI v. SHRI SURESH KUMAR & ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1055
SUNITA v. PREMWATI 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1056
Bell Finvest India Ltd. v. A U Small Finance Bank Limited 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1057
Bharat Foundry and Engineering Works v. Intec Capital Limited 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1058
Pratap Singh vs The State (NCT of Delhi) 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1059
SACHIN & ORS. v. CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE & ANR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1060
AMARJEET SHARMA v. SERIOUS FRAUD INVESTIGATION OFFICE 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1061
VIPIN SINGH v. STATE AND ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1062
NEHA v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1063
KUNDAN SINGH v. THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT) DELHI 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1064
Deepak Kapoor Versus PCIT 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1065
MOHAN PRASAD (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LRS SH. YOGESH & ORS. v. EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1066
VIVEK PURWAR AND ANR. v. HARI RAM AND SONS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1067
Hariom v. State (NCT of Delhi) 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1068
DR. REDDYS LABORATORIES LIMITED & ANR v. THE CONTROLLER OF PATENTS & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1069
SHER MOHAMMAD v. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI (SDMC) 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1070
SANJEEV KUMAR TIWARI v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1071
Rajasthan Global Securities Private Limited Versus ACIT 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1072
SURESH KUMAR v. CP & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1073
RAJIV CHAKRABORTY RESOLUTION PROFESSIONAL OF EIEL v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1074
L&T Hydrocarbon Engineering Limited versus Indian Oil Corporation Limited 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1075
DHANALAKSHMI SRINIVASAN MEDICAL COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1076
AK vs STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1077
IBO Group Pvt. Ltd. Versus DCIT 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1078
HAMDARD NATIONAL FOUNDATION (INDIA) & ANR. v. AMAZON INDIA LIMITED & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1079
LT FOODS LIMITED v. SARASWATI TRADING COMPANY 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1080
SHER SINGH @ RAJ BOHARA v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1081
Tricolor Hotels Limited v. Dinesh Jain 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1082
Sandeep Singh versus Simran Sodhi & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1083
UDDHAV THACKERAY v. THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1084
PCIT Versus PGF Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1085
COLLEGE OF APPLIED EDUCATION AND HEALTHSCIENCES v. NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1086
STAR INDIA PVT LTD AND ANR v. PIKASHOW APPLICATION AND ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1087
SUDHARSHAN KUMAR SHARMA AND ANR. v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1088
STAR INDIA PVT LTD & ANR. v. MOVIESGHAR.ART & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1089
Ram Kripal Singh Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. NTPC 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1090
ABDUL MAJEED BABA v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1091
ACTION COMMITTEE UNAIDED RECOGNIZED PRIVATE SCHOOL v. DIRECTOR (EDUCATION) & ANOTHER 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1092
Vikram Bhatnagar v. ACIT 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1093
Vidhur Bhardwaj versus Horizon Crest India Real Estate & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1094
Kapil Goel v. Ram Dulare Yadav 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1095
FUTURE COUPONS PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS. v. AMAZON.COM NV INVESTMENT HOLDINGS LLC & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1096
M/s Hetampuria Tax Fab versus M/s Daksh Enterprises 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1097
JOSHINI TULI v. STATE OF (NCT) OF DELHI & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1098
Bimal Kothari Versus Assistant Commissioner 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1099
SACHIN AND OTHERS v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1100
Hero Fincorp. Limited versus Techno Trexim (I) Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1101
RMSI Private Limited Versus NaFAC 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1102
Hans Raj Jain v. PMO 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1103
DINESH KUMAR v. GOVERNMENT OF NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1104
AJIT KUMAR v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1105
VIJAY KUMAR GUPTA v. RESERVE BANK OF INDIA & ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1106
STATE v. MOHD. JAVED NASIR & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1107
Tahir Hussain v. ED 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1108
PVR Limited versus Imperia Wishfield Private Limited 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1109
Rana Kapoor v. ED 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1110
AMITABH BACHCHAN v. RAJAT NAGI & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1111
HARNAM SINGH v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1112
GUJARAT COOPERATIVE MILK MARKETING FEDERATION LTD & ANR. vs SUJAY KUMAR & ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1113
Michelle Camilleri & Anr. v. Central Adoption Resource Authority & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1114
DS CONFECTIONERY PRODUCTS LIMITED vs NIRMALA GUPTA AND ANR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1115
MOHAN PRASAD (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LRS SH. YOGESH & ORS. v. EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1116
R.K. TARUN v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1117
Jagran Prakashan Limited vs Telegram FZ LLC & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1118
ATEET BANSAL v. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, DELHI & ANR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1119
AMAZON SELLER SERVICES PVT LTD vs DISH TV INDIA LTD & ANR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1120
EMEKA EMMANUEL vs THE STATE 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1121
MUFG Bank Versus CIT 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1122
GUNEET BHASIN v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. & ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1123
Title: HARDEEP SINGH v. THE STATE 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1124
Ravinder Kumar Aggarwal versus Income Tax Officer 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1125
PARLE PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED vs BRITANNIA INDUSTRIES LTD 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1126
RK vs State 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1127
DELHI WAQF BOARD THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN vs GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1128
MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS vs ASMITA SACHIN WAMAN 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1129
Sporta Technologies Pvt. Ltd. and Another v. Virat Saxena 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1130
NEETU SINGH vs TELEGRAM FZ LLC 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1131
ITC LIMITED vs CENTRAL PARK ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1132
SHISHRAM AS GUARDIAN OF MR. KAWAL vs BAL BHAVAN INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1133
Javed vs State NCT Of Delhi 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1134
Case Title: Medeor Hospital Ltd. Versus PCIT
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1027
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) FAQ No. 59 of Circular No.21/2020 dated December 4, 2020, which contemplates admission of appeal before the filing of declaration as a condition precedent for the appeal to be treated as pending and eligible for settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme (VSV Act) is contrary to law.
The division bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora has observed that Section 10 of the VSV Act gives power to the CBDT to issue directions, yet Section 10 is similar to Section 119 of the Act, 1961. Consequently, the CBDT under Section 10 of the VSV Act cannot issue circulars adverse to the assessee.
Title: DR RAVI M NAIR & ANR. vs UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1028
Dismissing a public interest litigation seeking directions for permitting homoeopathic treatment of mild COVID-19 cases, the Delhi High Court Tuesday said expert bodies like Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) are the best judge to decide and accord approval in respect of medical protocol.
"It is not for the Courts to comment upon the medical protocols and the guidelines framed on the subject which are, in fact, issued after great research on the subject," the division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad said.
Observing that COVID-19 infections have almost come to an end, the court said it does not find any reason to allow the relief prayed for by two homeopathic physicians, seeking directions for allowing treatment of mild COVID-19 cases with Homeopathic medicines alone and for severe cases to critical cases, as add-on therapy with allopathic medicine in hospitals, if desired by the patient.
Delhi High Court Orders Delisting Of Cookware With 'Amul' Name From Online Platforms
Title: GUJARAT COOPERATIVE MILK MARKETING FEDERATION LTD & ANR. v. MARUTI METALS & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1029
The Delhi High Court has ordered delisting of the cookware, being sold by a businessman under 'Amul' name, from the e-commerce platforms in a trademark infringement suit filed by the manufacturers of popular dairy brand Amul.
Justice Pratibha M Singh directed Maruti Metals, the cookware and pressure cooker manufacturer, to write to the e-commerce platforms selling its products for removal of its listings.
The suit was filed by Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Limited and Kaira District Cooperative Milk Producers' Union Limited seeking permanent injunction against Maruti Metals from manufacturing and selling its products under their well known trademark 'AMUL', claiming that the same was deceptively similar to their registered trademark, which is in use for milk and other products since 1958.
Title: DR. ZAFARUL ISLAM KHAN v. GOVT. OF NCT DELHI & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1030
The Delhi High Court has observed that increase in salaries of office bearers of a Commission is a policy decision of the State and the courts should refrain from interfering with the same unless it is found to be manifestly arbitrary or unreasonable.
A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad made the observation while dismissing an appeal filed by Dr. Zafarul Islam Khan, former Chairman of Delhi Minorities Commission (DMC), for retrospective implementation of a notification dated 09.06.2021 regarding increase in salary and allowances of the Chairperson and office bearers of the DMC. A single bench had earlier dismissed his petition.
Arbitration Proceedings Against IRCTC; Delhi High Court Rejects Unilateral Appointment Of Arbitrator
Case Title: KMA Caterers v. Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation (IRCTC)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1031
The High Court of Delhi has held that the designation of Zonal Offices as the 'venue' of arbitration would not make it the 'seat' of arbitration when the meaningful dealings related to the contract happened at the Headquarters of a party.
The bench of Justice Mini Pushkarna held that venue would not become the seat when the tender documents, the process of award of tender, licence fees, signature and execution of the agreement and the jurisdiction of Court all happens to be on a place other than the venue.
The Court further held that the procedure for appointing the sole arbitrator from the panel of arbitrators maintained by the Employer would be hit by Section 12(5) of the Act.
Case Title: Gangotri Enterprises Ltd. v. General Manager Northern Railways
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1032
The High Court of Delhi has held that a panel of arbitrator with only four names to choose from does not satisfy the concept of neutrality of arbitrators. It held that a narrow panel comprising of retired employees of a party creates a reasonable apprehension of bias and partiality.
The bench of Justice Mini Pushkarna held that the contractor cannot be made to choose its nominee arbitrator from a panel of only four names and that too when the final choice of appointing its nominee arbitrator is vested on the Employer.
The Court held that an arbitrator clause, whereby the contractor is made to choose two names from a panel of four arbitrators and the final authority of choosing the nominee arbitrator from the two names given is vested on the employer, is invalid in law. It further held that the names on the panel should not be the employees or ex-employees of one of the parties.
Title: BRIJ MOHAN SEHGAL v. PANKAJ SANGHI
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1033
The Delhi High Court has observed that the competent authority's decision to order transfers and postings of employees would not attract criminal consequences under the Indian Penal Code.
"The transfers and postings even if thought to be arbitrary by the Competent Authority would not attract criminal consequences under Sections 166, 405 or Section 409 of IPC. An arbitrary act may not necessarily amount to a criminal offence punishable under Indian Penal Code," said the court.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma made the observations in her judgment upholding the orders passed by an Additional Sessions Judge and Metropolitan Magistrate in a complaint case filed by Brij Mohan Sehgal, a Public Prosecutor in Delhi's Directorate of Prosecution against former Director of Prosecution, Pankaj Sanghi.
Title: SUNIL KUMAR PANDEY AND ANR v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1034
Highlighting the issued faced by various homebuyers in the country, the Delhi High Court on Tuesday said that it is an "unfortunate trend" that builders often resort to dilatory tactics, defraud homebuyers by selling units to multiple individuals, delay the execution of projects, and execute projects without requisite sanctions.
"Invariably most of such builders also undergo insolvency. The greatest loss is incurred by innocent homebuyers who are not only forced to embroil themselves in litigation but are also divested of their hard-earned savings," said the division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad.
Title: ANIL KUMAR v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1035
The Delhi High Court has upheld a dismissal order passed against a man, who was appointed as a constable in the Border Security Force (BSF), over "non-disclosure and wrong disclosure" of an FIR registered against him when he was a minor.
A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Saurabh Banerjee said the petitioner had been giving false information since the very beginning — when he filled the form at the time of applying for the post in BSF, when he was yet to commence his training and thereafter once again when he gave a reply to the show cause notice after joining.
The court said it finds it extremely hard to believe that he was unaware of the FIR or the proceedings emanating therefrom as he certainly would have been a party to those at every stage.
Title: Samata Party v. ECI & Ors
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1036
The Delhi High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by Samata Party challenging a single judge order which last month rejected its plea against allotment of flaming torch symbol to Uddhav Thackeray's Shiv Sena by Election Commission of India (ECI) for the Andheri East bypoll in Maharashtra.
A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad dismissed the plea after hearing the counsel appearing for Samata Party as well as the ECI.
Case Title: Saurabh Bhardwaj v. Delhi Police & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1037
The Delhi High Court has disposed of a public interest litigation filed by Aam Aadmi Party MLA Saurabh Bhardwaj seeking an SIT investigation into the incident of attack and vandalism outside the official residence of Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal on March 30.
Bhardwaj had alleged that the violence was done by "goons of the Bharatiya Janata Party" under the garb of protest.
A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad was informed by Bhardwaj's counsel that the grievances raised in the plea stand satisfied in view of the assurances given by the Delhi Police in various status reports submitted before the court.
Title: Vinod Kumar v. State and other connected matters
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1038
The Delhi High Court has upheld the conviction and life sentence awarded to three men for raping a minor girl in 2011. The class X student, who was first raped by a relative, was subsequently raped by two strangers, who had offered her help when she was walking on road after escaping from her relative's house.
A division bench of Justice Mukta Gupta and Justice Anish Dayal dismissed the appeals filed by the three men, who were convicted on December 15, 2018 and were awarded life sentences.
While one of the convicts (relative of the minor girl) was convicted under Sections 366, 376 and 34 of Indian Penal Code, the other two persons were convicted under Sections 366, 376(2)(g) and 34 of the Code.
Title: SUMIT DAGAR v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1039
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the right of an employer to utilize the services of an employee upon promotion cannot be curtailed by general guidelines issued for regulating annual or routine transfers.
Justice Rekha Palli also accepted the argument that even if the transfer of an employee, who is in a transferable job, is in violation of executive guidelines, court must not normally interfere with such transfer unless a ground of mala fide is made out.
The court made the observations while dismissing a plea filed by one Sumit Dagar who had joined the Airport Authority of India (AAI) on July 18, 2011 as a Junior Executive (Air Traffic Control). He was holding a post of Assistant Manager before his promotion in July this year.
Title: FDC LIMITED v. NILRISE PHARMACEUTICALS PVT. LTD. AND ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1040
The Delhi High Court has said that the test for comparison of two trademarks related to medicinal products needs to be far stricter than the one applied to other goods, as any confusion in the same would result in public injury.
Justice Navin Chawla made the observation while granting ad interim injunction in favour of FDC Limited, a pharmaceutical company, in its trademark infringement suit against Nilrise Pharmaceutical Limited, seeking protection of its registered mark "ZIPOD".
Title: Babu Khan vs Union Of India & Anr
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1041
Directing the authorities to reinstate a Constable of Railway Protection Special Force who was compulsorily retired in 2014, the Delhi High Court on Thursday said people with Paranoid Schizophrenia by and large are neither harmful to people nor a threat to the society.
The division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Saurabh Banerjee said each individual suffering from the illness has to be dealt with differently "just like each doctor prescribes different medicines to different patients suffering from similar disease(s)".
"But, yes, they may, in a fit of rage, be a danger for some time. Those again depend upon the conditions, situations and surroundings prevalent then and most of all the gravity of the illness involved and may not, by and large, be present in all cases," said the court.
Title: AJAY KUMAR MITTAL v. UOI & ORS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1042
The Delhi High Court has held that philatelic exhibits of postage stamps, fiscal stamps, envelopes, stamp papers and other such documents, are "antiquities" within the meaning of the Antiquities and Art Treasures Act, 1972.
Noting that philately is a hobby of the "discerning connoisseur" who appreciates the intrinsic value of vintage stamps and other such documents, Justice C Hari Shankar observed that such exhibits are articles, objects or things of historical interest within the meaning of section 2(1)(a)(I)(iv) of the Act.
The said provision defines antiquity as any article, object or thing of historical interest.
"In fact, though a select group of collectors may take the trouble to collect such exhibits, their inherent and intrinsic historical value far transcends the covers of the albums that such collectors may maintain. They are, therefore, ex facie ―antiquities within the meaning of Section 2(1) (a)(I)(iv)," the court said.
Case Title: Sotkon SP SLU v. Western Imaginary Transcon Private Limited and Others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1043
The Delhi High Court has said that a Mumbai-based company is prima facie guilty of contempt for continuing to supply garbage bins to Gandhinagar Municipal Corporation, in violation of an interim injunction granted by it last year in favour of Sotkon, an international waste management company.
Hearing a patent infringement suit filed by Sotkon last year, the court in the interim order had restrained the defendant Western Imaginary Transcon Private Limited from infringing Sotkon's registered patent, after the global company had argued that the Mumbai-based company misused the photographs of its products, drawings and illustrations from the its brochure and also copied the technical specifications of its products while submitting a bid in response to a tender notice floated by the Gandhinagar municipal body in 2020 for installation of smart underground bins.
Title: M/S. M.M. TRADERS v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1044
The Delhi High Court has asked the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) to consider framing a regime whereby fruits and vegetables which are ripened artificially by using ethylene gas or other artificial ripeners should have a "necessary indication" placed on it.
A division bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju asked the FSSAI to draw up a broad framework which takes into account all kinds of artificial ripeners so that the consumer is made aware of the fact that the fruit or vegetable has been ripened artificially.
The counsel representing FSSAI told the court that the matter will be deliberated upon and the guidelines will be placed before the court.
Delhi High Court Condones Delay In Payments Under VSV Due To Covid and Death Of Managing Director
Case Title: Srishtii Infra Housing Pvt. Ltd. Versus PCIT
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1045
The Delhi High Court, while exercising its extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has condoned the delay in payments under Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas (VSV) due to COVID and the death of the managing director of the company.
The division bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora has observed that the power to condone the delay with regard to delay in payment is not vested with the departmental authorities, yet this Court, under its inherent powers in extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can pass any order necessary to remedy the injustice.
Case Title: Consolidated Construction Consortium Limited v. SDMC
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1046
The Delhi High Court has held that nomenclature of an arbitration clause is immaterial when all the elements are present.
The bench of Justice Prateek Jalan held that an arbitration clause would not loose its character merely because the word 'mediation' has been used as its nomenclature. It held that, in construction of a contractual clause, the Court should be guided by the substance of the agreement between the parties rather than by the nomenclature employed. The Court expounded on the essential elements of an arbitration clause.
Case Title: M/s Sequoia Fitness and Sports Technology Pvt. Ltd. versus GD Goenka Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1047
The Delhi High Court has ruled that a mere exchange of communication is not sufficient to show that the parties are at ad idem with respect to an arbitration agreement, when none of the correspondence exchanged between the parties made any reference to an agreement containing an arbitration clause.
The Single bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao observed that the petitioner had failed to show any positive act of the opposite party, depicting acceptance of the terms of the agreement containing an arbitration clause.
Case Title: Commissioner of Income Tax versus Somnath Buildtech Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1048
The Delhi High Court has ruled that advertisement expenses, Software Developing Charges, and expenses towards brokerage and commission, incurred by a real estate developer, are in the nature of general administration cost and selling cost, as classified by the Guidance Note issued by the ICAI. Thus, they qualify for deduction as revenue expenditure.
The bench of Justices Manmohan and Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora observed that the dispute involving the year of deduction, which was sought to be postponed by the revenue department, was revenue neutral, having no tax affect and that it did not put the revenue department at any disadvantageous position.
Title: SUJATA CHAUDHRI v. SWARUPA GHOSH
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1049
The Delhi High Court has said that there is a duty cast upon the legal professionals, particularly Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) lawyers, to ensure that they do not imitate or adopt a name or logo already used by others offering similar services.
"This Court is of the opinion that higher standards of probity would be expected, from lawyers and legal professionals especially IPR lawyers, inasmuch as there is a duty cast upon them to ensure that they do not imitate or adopt a name or logo which is already in existence or in use by another person or entity, offering similar services," Justice Pratibha M Singh said.
The court made the observations in its interim order in a suit filed by a Delhi-based IP lawyer Sujata Chaudhri, the proprietor and founder of a IP law firm Sujata Chaudhri IP Attorneys. Chaudhri has sued Swarupa Ghosh, a Kolkata-based lawyer, for adopting an almost identical logo for her chamb
Case Title: Axis Trusteeship Services Limited v. Brij Bhushan Singhal & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1050
The Delhi High Court recently held that the interim moratorium under section 96 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC/Code) is specific to all debts of a particular debtor and will not be applicable to other personal co-guarantors.
Title: ELSEVIER LTD. AND ORS. v. ALEXANDRA ELBAKYAN AND ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1051
The Delhi High Court has rejected Alexandra Elbakyan's application seeking withdrawal of an earlier admission accepting the copyright ownership of publishing houses Elsevier, Wiley and American Chemical Society in an ongoing lawsuit.
Elbakyan is the founder of the shadow library website Sci Hub and had made the admission in her written statement to the suit filed by major publishing houses Elsevier, Wiley India, Wiley Periodicals and American Chemical Society. In their suit against online repositories Sci-Hub and Libgen, the publishers have said the websites indulge in online piracy by making their literary work available to the public for free.
Rejecting the application seeking amendment in the written statement, Justice Navin Chawla said the amendment is not in nature of a clarification or an explanation to the admission made in the written statement but seeks a complete withdrawal of the said admission.
Title: MANISH GUPTA vs GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1052
The Delhi High Court has said that forums created under The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 are "neither obliged nor placed under a duty" to render categorical findings with respect to the civil rights which are claimed by parties.
"The primordial consideration of those proceedings is to safeguard the interest of the senior citizens and to ensure that they are not harassed or ill-treated in their twilight years," said Justice Yashwant Varma.
Title: ASHU & ORS v. THE REGISTRAR GENERAL, HIGH COURT OF DELHI AND ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1053
The Delhi High Court has held that all the candidates belonging to reserved categories as notified by a Presidential Order in any state or union territory would be entitled to reservation benefit in Delhi subordinate services.
"If a candidate is able to furnish a certificate of belonging to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe – which may otherwise be issued only by the competent authority where such a candidate is ordinarily resident – he cannot be denied the benefit of reservation as specified under the Notification."
Title: LOUIS VUITTON MALLETIER v. FUTURETIMES TECHNOLOGY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1054
The Delhi High Court has awarded Rs. 20 lakhs costs in favour of French luxury fashion house Louis Vuitton Malletier in its trademark infringement suit against Club Factory, a China-based e-shopping website which was banned in India in 2021.
Though the suit was decreed on March 24 when a permanent injunction was granted against the Chinese website and now it was listed for ex-parte evidence in respect of the relief of damages, Louis Vuitton's counsel on November 03 told the court that "owing to certain sensitivity", the plaintiff only wishes to press for costs in the matter.
The luxury brand placed on record the bill of costs and claimed Rs.32,29,416.
Title: SAROJINI NAGAR JHUGGI JHOPRI VIKAS SAMITI v. SHRI SURESH KUMAR & ORS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1055
Observing that the provision of appeal under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is extremely limited and regulated, the Delhi High Court last week said the maintainability of an appeal under Section 19 is dependent upon a contemnor being guilty or punished under the law and in no other case.
A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Saurabh Banerjee said an order rejecting a petition for contempt is not open to challenge as an appeal lies only when the court has exercised the power to hold a contemnor guilty.
"In other words, denial of an order not holding a contemnor guilty or punishing a contemnor, is not appealable under Section 19 of the Act," said the court, adding that for an appeal to be maintainable under Section 19 of the Act there has to be a definite finding against a contemnor, or else there cannot be any right to appeal.
Title: SUNITA v. PREMWATI
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1056
The Delhi High Court has said that a court cannot compel a lawyer to conclude cross examination on the very day it starts, except in rarest of circumstances.
"While it is open to a Court to jettison irrelevant and immaterial questions, if asked by Counsel, nonetheless, save and except in the rarest of circumstances, the Court cannot compel a Counsel to conclude cross-examination on the very day when it starts," Justice C Hari Shankar observed.
Case Title: Bell Finvest India Ltd. v. A U Small Finance Bank Limited
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1057
The High Court of Delhi has held that a borrower which also happens to be a financial institution cannot resort to arbitration provided under Section 11 of SARFAESI Act.
The bench of Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani held that Section 11 of SARFAESI Act provides for remedy by way of arbitration only in cases of inter se dispute between the financial institution but does not cover a simple lender-borrower dispute, even if the borrower is a financial institution.
Case Title: Bharat Foundry and Engineering Works v. Intec Capital Limited
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1058
The High Court of Delhi has held that unlike Schedule VII, the circumstances mentioned under the Vth Schedule do not per se render an arbitrator ineligible to be appointed as arbitrator unless it is established that the arbitrator's neutrality was indeed compromised.
The bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri held that merely because an Arbitrator has been appointed in more than two arbitral proceedings between the parties/their affiliates, the Award cannot be set aside, until a concrete foundation is laid down for doubting the independence and impartiality of the Arbitrator.
Title: Pratap Singh vs The State (NCT of Delhi)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1059
The Delhi High Court has granted bail to an accused in an NDPS case, observing that 'Khad' cannot be solely interpreted to mean drugs or contraband.
"The applicant is in the business of fertilizers and hence the use of word 'Khad' is neither unusual nor strange. I have reasonable ground to believe that he is not guilty of the offence," said Justice Jasmeet Singh in the order dated October 3.
The court made the observation while granting bail to Pratap Singh, who was in custody in the case since March 09 last year.
Title: SACHIN & ORS. v. CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE & ANR
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1060
The Delhi High Court has said the Home Secretary and Director General of the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) will be personally liable for contempt if they fail to complete the recruitment process for the post of Head Constable (Ministerial) within a period of eight weeks.
The court on March 08 had directed the CRPF to act upon a communication issued by the Department of Personnel & Training (DoPT) of the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, regarding the filling-up of vacant posts in the central government ministries or departments, within six weeks.
Title: AMARJEET SHARMA v. SERIOUS FRAUD INVESTIGATION OFFICE
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1061
Observing that the right of default bail is finished or extinguished the moment chargesheet is filed within the period prescribed under Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), the Delhi High Court has ruled that any irregularity or illegality in the remand order is not a "statutorily sanctioned reason" for grant of default bail.
"A reading of the provisions under Section 167 of Cr.P.C. nowhere carves out the principle to indicate that the accused would be entitled for bail for any reason whatsoever apart from any other reason then stipulated under the proviso (a) of sub-Section (2) of Section 167 of Cr.P.C," said the court.
The court said the language of sub-Section 3 of Section 167 of Cr.P.C. is unambiguous and, therefore, has to be understood in the natural and ordinary sense.
Title: VIPIN SINGH v. STATE AND ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1062
Hearing a bail plea of a rape accused, who is also facing charges under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, the Delhi High Court has directed the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) to furnish details of the victim's date of birth as per the records relating to her Aadhar card.
The court passed the order after the accused claimed that the prosecutrix, as per the copy of Aadhar card in his possession, was major on the alleged date of incident. The claim was opposed by the State.
Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta said the investigating agency as well as the Special Court during the course of trial have a duty to ascertain or determine and satisfy itself to the age of the victim considering the fact that trial under provisions of POCSO Act places presumption and existence of mental state under Section 29 and 30 of the Act.
Title: NEHA v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1063
The Delhi High Court has observed that the Armed Forces and Para Military Forces are the best judges to set their own standards for selection as per their own discretion and the same merits no interference by a court of law, unless there is some "grave exceptional circumstances."
A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Saurabh Banerjee made the observation while dismissing a plea filed by a boxer, who had applied for the post of Head Constable (General Duty) in CISF under sports quota, but was later declared as medically unfit due to obesity. The plea was moved challenging the result given by Review Medical Examination and all subsequent proceedings regarding appointment.
Title: KUNDAN SINGH v. THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT) DELHI
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1064
"Sensitivity and compassion balanced with rules, regulations and law needs to be maintained by any Court as one is dealing with humans and not mere files and orders," the Delhi High Court has observed while granting parole of 45 days to a murder convict.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma granted relief to Kundan Singh, who is serving life sentence in the Tihar Jail. Singh, who is a native of Uttarakhand, was convicted in January 2014 for murdering his friend Vipin Kumar, whose head, hands and legs below the knee had been chopped off and thrown away in a jungle near Lado Sarai bus stand in August 2007. The high court in 2015 upheld Singh's conviction. The Supreme Court also dismissed his SLP in July 2019.
Reassessment Notice Based On Error Resulting From Oversight Of AO Is Not Valid: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Deepak Kapoor Versus PCIT
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1065
The Delhi High Court has held that the reassessment notice based on an error resulting from the oversight of the assessing officer is not valid.
The division bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Gemini Leather Stores v. Income Tax Officer, in which it was held that where the Income Tax Officer has all the material before him and has framed the original assessment, it is not open for him to take recourse to Section 147(a) of the Act to remedy the error resulting from his oversight.
The court has observed that it was impermissible for the AO to seek a reopening of the assessment to review its decision regarding the fair market value of the property or deduction on account paid by the assessee to his sisters or the expenses incurred by him.
Case Title: MOHAN PRASAD (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LRS SH. YOGESH & ORS. v. EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1066
Taking note of the large pendency and lack of a uniform method for prioritisation of cases in the district consumer forums, the Delhi High Court has issued directions for ensuring expeditious disposal of the consumer matters
Justice Pratibha M Singh directed the Registrars of concerned district forums to start listing final matters, where evidence has been concluded, for hearing at 2:30 PM on a daily basis, with effect from November 14.
The matters shall be listed in a chronological manner starting from the oldest cases first, the court said, adding that an advance publication shall be made in the cause list so that the lawyers and litigants are duly informed.
Title: VIVEK PURWAR AND ANR. v. HARI RAM AND SONS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1067
The Delhi High Court has observed that merely because the defendant advertised its products during the course of business in the national capital, cannot mean that the trial court here would have jurisdiction to entertain a plaintiff's suit alleging trademark infringement and passing off.
Justice Navin Chawla made the observation while setting aside a decree passed by Additional District Judge of Tis Hazari Courts in a suit filed by manufacturer of sweets and namkeens restraining two individuals from using the plaintiff's trademark 'HARI RAM AND SONS & HR LOGO'.
The suit was filed by proprietors of M/s. Hari Ram and Sons alleging that the defendants adopted the same trademark for similar business.
Case Title: Hariom v. State (NCT of Delhi)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1068
The Delhi High Court on Thursday directed Tata Power Delhi Distribution Limited (TPDDL) to provide electricity connections to Pakistani Hindu migrants, who are residing in the city's Adarsh Nagar area, within a period of 30 days.
A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad disposed of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking directions for including Aadhaar card and long-term visa as a sufficient proof in respect of occupancy of the premises, to enable them to apply for electricity connections.
The power company was earlier demanding proof of ownership of land to supply electricity to them. The migrants are allegedly living on land belonging to the defence ministry.
Title: DR. REDDYS LABORATORIES LIMITED & ANR v. THE CONTROLLER OF PATENTS & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1069
The Delhi High Court on Thursday ruled that after the enactment of the Tribunal Reforms Act 2021, appeals challenging the order of the Patent Office would lie before the concerned High Courts having territorial jurisdiction over the "appropriate office" from where the patent application originates, as being the "situs of the said application."
Justice Pratibha M Singh observed that in such appeals, the concept of cause of action cannot be pleaded to vest jurisdiction in other High Courts i.e., other than the one in the territorial jurisdiction of which the appropriate office is located.
Title: SHER MOHAMMAD v. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI (SDMC)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1070
The Delhi High Court has said that unauthorized constructions are a bane to "orderly development" of the city, which is bursting at its seams, and they cannot be allowed to continue to stand in perpetuity.
Justice C Hari Shankar made the observation while dismissing a Delhi resident Sher Mohammad's plea challenging an order passed by Principal District & Sessions Judge on September 14.
Vide the impugned order, the trial court had rejected Mohammad's appeal against an order of the Appellate Tribunal of Municipal Corporation of Delhi.
Title: SANJEEV KUMAR TIWARI v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1071
The Delhi High Court on Friday dismissed a public interest litigation challenging the appointment of newly sworn-in Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and imposed a cost of Rs. 1 lakh on the petitioner.
A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad called it a "publicity interest litigation"
The petitioner Sanjeev Kumar Tiwari in the PIL argued that the appointment of Justice Chandrachud was made in violation of the provisions of the constitution. He prayed for an immediate stay on Justice Chandrachud's appointment.
Delhi High Court Quashes Reassessment Order In The Name Of A Non-Existing Entity
Case Title: Rajasthan Global Securities Private Limited Versus ACIT
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1072
The Delhi High Court has quashed the reassessment order in the name of a non-existing entity.
The division bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan has observed that not only was the notice issued in the name of the transferor company but the order under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, as well as the notice under Section 148, have been issued on the PAN of the transferor company.
The Aureole Impex Pvt. Ltd. (Transferor Company) was merged with M/s. Rajasthan Global Securities Private Limited (Transferee Company). After the amalgamation order passed by the High Court, the company stood dissolved without winding up. There was no obligation or scope under the law for any income tax returns to be filed by Aureole Impex Pvt. Ltd.
Title: SURESH KUMAR v. CP & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1073
The Delhi High Court has upheld the dismissal of a police head constable who was caught with 75 dirhams while on duty of checking passengers' passports at the Indira Gandhi International Airport in 1996, observing that the police officers who break law must be "dealt with iron hands."
Calling it an "open and shut case", a division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad said possession of foreign currency in head constable's pocket at the time of surprise check along with statements of witnesses "clearly establishes misconduct committed by him."
Title: RAJIV CHAKRABORTY RESOLUTION PROFESSIONAL OF EIEL v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1074
Observing that assets, which may have been obtained by the commission of a scheduled offense cannot be accorded exemption or immunity from the rigours of the PMLA, the Delhi High Court on Friday ruled that provisions of the money laundering Act are not subservient to the moratorium provision comprised in Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2006.
"Acceptance of such a contention would not only run contrary to the legislative policy but also undermine the efforts of the legislature to combat the offense of money laundering. In fact if Section 14 were to be interpreted in the manner as suggested by the petitioner, it would deprive the authorities charged with implementing the provisions of the PMLA of an essential weapon in their quest to confiscate proceeds of crime," said the court.
Case Title: L&T Hydrocarbon Engineering Limited versus Indian Oil Corporation Limited
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1075
The Delhi High Court has ruled that an arbitrator gets the jurisdiction only with respect to the claims which are 'notified' by the specified authority, as provided in the arbitration clause, and that if the claims are not notified, they will not form the subject matter of arbitration.
The Single Bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao held that the procedure of forwarding a panel of names to the other contracting party, to choose its nominee arbitrator from amongst them, is no longer a valid procedure.
The Court added that in the absence of a free choice given to a party, to choose the arbitrator from a broad and diversified panel, there was a possibility of apprehension of bias arising in its mind, which would defeat the purpose of arbitration.
Title: DHANALAKSHMI SRINIVASAN MEDICAL COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1076
Emphasising on the growing need of qualified doctors in the country, the Delhi High Court has observed that deserving medical colleges must not be unfairly denied the opportunity to contribute in enhancing the strength of medical professionals.
Justice Sanjeev Narula said that augmentation of medical infrastructure is crucial, and hence, the role of regulatory bodies like National Medical Commission (NMC) is "unquestionably significant."
"The authorisation procedure must indeed be strictly adhered to ensure that there is no decline in the quality of medical education. However, at the same time, deserving colleges must not be unfairly denied the opportunity to contribute in enhancing the strength of medical professionals," the court said.
Title: AK vs STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1077
The Delhi High Court has said that the intention of The Protection Of Children From Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act was to protect the children from sexual abuse and not criminalise consensual romantic relationships of young adults.
Justice Jasmeet Singh said the factum of a consensual relationship borne out of love should be of consideration while granting bail.
Delhi High Court Stays Reassessment Order Against IBIBO Group
Case Title: IBIBO Group Pvt. Ltd. Versus DCIT
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1078
The Delhi High Court has stayed the reassessment order against an online travel agent, IBIBO Group, and issued a notice to the income tax department.
"The Assessing Officer is permitted to pass the reassessment order, yet the same shall not be given effect to and shall be subject to further orders to be passed by this Court," the division bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora ordered.
Case Title: HAMDARD NATIONAL FOUNDATION (INDIA) & ANR. v. AMAZON INDIA LIMITED & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1079
After ordering Amazon to remove the listings of Pakistan-manufactured Rooh Afza from its platform in India, the Delhi High Court has passed a permanent injunction in favour of Hamdard National Foundation (India) restraining various sellers from offering the infringing products.
Hamdard National Foundation and Hamdard Laboratories India (Hamdard Dawakhana) had earlier filed a suit against Amazon and some sellers which were offering the products of its Pakistani counterpart on the e-commerce site in India. Justice Prathiba M. Singh on September 5 had directed Amazon to remove the listings of infringing products from its Indian website within 48 hours and provide details of the sellers to Hamdard.
Title: LT FOODS LIMITED v. SARASWATI TRADING COMPANY
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1080
Permanently restraining a Raipur-based seller from manufacturing and selling counterfeit 'DAAWAT' branded products, the Delhi High Court has awarded Rs. 25 lakhs as damages and costs in favour of the famous basmati rice brand manufacturer LT Foods Limited in a trademark infringement suit.
Justice Pratibha M Singh observed that Saraswati Trading Company, based in Chattisgarh's Raipur city, is using a "counterfeit packaging" identical to Daawat brand wherein it is selling Jawaphool Rice and portraying it as Basmati Rice.
"These are goods for human consumption. Considering the Plaintiff's reputation and the fact that 'DAAWAT' is a well-known mark in India, the suit is liable to be decreed," the court said.
Title: SHER SINGH @ RAJ BOHARA v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1081
The Delhi High Court has asked its Registrar General to expeditiously implement a 2018 verdict wherein he was requested to explore the possibility of creation of a database for district courts to ensure preservation of right of default bail of the accused.
Justice Anu Malhotra referred to the observations made in Arvind Kumar Saxena v. State wherein she had requested the Registrar General to create the database on various dates in relation to pending remand applications before the trial courts, the dates of arrest and by when the chargesheet is to be filed or has been filed.
The court in the 2018 verdict had observed that such a database or software would enable the trial courts to inform the accused appearing before them that they are entitled to the indefeasible right of default bail and may exercise the same if he or she is willing to furnish bail.
Case Title: Tricolor Hotels Limited v. Dinesh Jain
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1082
The Delhi High Court has held that the period of limitation for appointing a substitute arbitrator under Section 15(2) of the A&C Act commences on the date of recusal/removal of the arbitrator and the date on which the fact of his removal/recusal comes to the knowledge of a party is irrelevant for the purpose of limitation.
The bench of Justice Mini Pushkarna held that since Section 15 of the A&C Act does not contain any provision of limitation, therefore, the period of limitation would be 3 years as provided under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
Doctrine Of Group Of Companies, Can't Implead Third Party To Arbitration: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Sandeep Singh versus Simran Sodhi & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1083
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the Doctrine of Group of Companies cannot be applied to implead a non-signatory third party to arbitration, in a dispute arising between partners relating to the partnership business. The Court held that partnership in its very nature cannot be equated with a company to invoke the Doctrine of Group of Companies.
The Single Bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao held that if allegations raised against a party contain a criminal aspect of fraud, forgery or fabrication, which would result in penal consequences and criminal sanctions, the same cannot be referred to arbitration. The Court added that the same would be adjudicated by a Court of law, since it may result in conviction which is in the realm of public law.
Title: UDDHAV THACKERAY v. THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1084
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday dismissed the plea moved by Former Maharashtra Chief Minister Uddhav Thackeray against Election Commission of India (ECI)'s decision to freeze Shiv Sena's 'bow and arrow' party symbol.
The ECI on October 8 directed both Thackeray and Eknath Shinde's faction to not use the name "Shiv Sena" or symbol "bow and arrow" till their rival claims for the official recognition is finally decided. For the recent Andheri East bypoll, the party factions were allotted different symbols.
While dismissing the plea, Justice Sanjeev Narula directed the ECI to adjudicate the pending dispute as expeditiously as possible, keeping in view the interest of both the parties and also the public.
Addition/Disallowance Can't Be Made Merely On Assessee's Admission During Search: Delhi High Court
Case Title: PCIT Versus PGF Ltd.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1085
The Delhi High Court has held that the statement recorded during the course of the search, on a standalone basis, without any reference to material found during the search, would not empower the AO to make additions/disallowance merely on the assessee's admission.
"The Appellant-Revenue has not placed reliance on or even referred to any statement recorded under Section 132(4) of the Act, 1961. No statement has been produced before this Court. Therefore, in the facts of the present case, the issue does not arise for consideration unless it can be demonstrated by the Appellant-Revenue that the statements recorded under Section 132(4) disclose some incriminating material on the basis of which orders under Section 153A have been passed," the division bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora said.
Title: COLLEGE OF APPLIED EDUCATION AND HEALTHSCIENCES v. NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1086
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) cannot claim existence of any inherent or plenary powers, adding that a statutory authority cannot impose penalties without authority of law in absence of an express provision in the parent statute.
Observing that penalty is a statutory liability which must be provided in the legislation itself, Justice Sanjeev Narula said that except for initiation of penal action of withdrawal of recognition under section 17 of the NCTE Act, 1993, there is no other express penal provision specified in the statute.
Title: STAR INDIA PVT LTD AND ANR v. PIKASHOW APPLICATION AND ORS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1087
The Delhi High Court has ordered blocking of 'PikaShow' mobile application, observing that it is a "rogue app" which is intended "only to broadcast and stream illegal content."
Passing interim injunction against the application and its owners, Justice Pratibha M Singh directed Department of Telecommunications and Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology to issue blocking orders against PikaShow app and all the domain names making it available, to ensure that it is blocked by all internet service providers (ISPs) across the country.
Electricity Is Essential Service, Cannot Be Denied Without Cogent, Lawful Reason: Delhi High Court
Title: SUDHARSHAN KUMAR SHARMA AND ANR. v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1088
Observing that electricity is an essential service, the Delhi High Court has said that a person cannot be deprived of it without a cogent and lawful reason.
Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri in a judgment passed on Monday said that it is well-settled that even if disputes exist regarding the ownership of a property at which an electricity connection is sought, the concerned authorities cannot deprive the legal occupant of the same by insisting that a no objection certificate (NOC) be furnished from others, who also claim to be owners.
Title: STAR INDIA PVT LTD & ANR. v. MOVIESGHAR.ART & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1089
The Delhi High Court has permanently restrained a total of 732 rogue websites from broadcasting and streaming the Ajay Devgn starrer movie "Bhuj: The Pride of India."
Directed by Bhuj Abhishek Dudhaiya, the film was released on August 13 last year. The movie relates to the Indo-Pak war of 1971 and has now been released on various online and OTT platforms.
Justice Pratibha M Singh decreed a suit filed last year by Star India Private Limited and Novi Digital Entertainment Private Limited against 42 rogue websites seeking that the websites be restrained permanently from communicating the film to the public.
Case Title: Ram Kripal Singh Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. NTPC
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1090
The Delhi High Court has held that Section 12(5) that provides for grounds of ineligibility of arbitrator would apply regardless whether the notice of arbitration was given before or after the 2015 amendment came into force provided that the appointment was made on a date Section 12(5) was in force.
The bench of Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani held that in view of Section 12, independence and impartiality of arbitrator is a continuing requirement and any ineligible person acting as the arbitrator cannot continue merely because the arbitral proceedings began before the Section 12(5) came into force.
Delhi High Court Rejects JeM Militant's Plea For Transfer From Tihar To Srinagar Jail
Title: ABDUL MAJEED BABA v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1091
The Delhi High Court has rejected the petition filed by a Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM) militant Abdul Majeed Baba, who is serving life imprisonment in a UAPA case, for transfer from Tihar jail to his native state jail in Srinagar.
Justice Poonam Bamba however directed the Superintendent of Tihar Jail to ensure that requisite treatment and medical care be continued to be provided to Baba, who is 66 years old. Seeking transfer to Srinagar Central Jail, Baba had submitted that his health is deteriorating every day and his family members are unable to visit him from Kashmir.
Baba, a resident of Jammu & Kashmir, is lodged in a high risk ward in Central Jail, Tihar. He was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment for the offences under sections 120B, 121A, 122 and 123 of IPC and sections 17, 18, 20, 21 and 23 of UAPA. His conviction was upheld by the Supreme Court in February 2020.
Title: ACTION COMMITTEE UNAIDED RECOGNIZED PRIVATE SCHOOL v. DIRECTOR (EDUCATION) & ANOTHER
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1092
The Delhi High Court has ruled that Rule 166 of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 which entitles a school to charge a student with a fine of five paise for every day for delay in payment of fees after the tenth day of the month, is not applicable to private unaided schools.
A division bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan held that Chapter XIII of the Rules are applicable only in relation to aided schools and not to private unaided schools. Chapter XIII of the Rules is divided in three parts — Part A (144-155, fees and other charges in aided schools), Part B (157-170, fee concessions) and Part C (Pupil's Fund Advisory Committee).
Case Title: Vikram Bhatnagar v. ACIT
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1093
The Delhi High Court has quashed the assessment order passed against the dead person without bringing on record all his legal representatives is void.
The division bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora has observed that the death of the assessee was duly communicated by his legal heirs. The ITR also duly disclosed that it was filed by the legal representative. However, due to a lack of knowledge of the facts on the record, the scrutiny proceedings were wrongfully conducted in the name of the deceased assessee without bringing all of his legal heirs to the record as required by law.
Case Title: Vidhur Bhardwaj versus Horizon Crest India Real Estate & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1094
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the benefit of extension of limitation for filing an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), by virtue of an application filed under Section 33, for correction and interpretation of award, would not apply solely to the parties making the request under Section 33.
The single bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru held that the issue whether the limitation for filing a Section 34 application would run from the date of disposal of the application under Section 33 or from the date of receipt of the award, is not contingent upon the arbitral tribunal's decision on the application filed under Section 33.
Case Title: Kapil Goel v. Ram Dulare Yadav
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1095
The High Court of Delhi has held that the failure of the defendant to participate in the Pre-Institution Mediation suffice the requirement of Section 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
The bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad held that the consent of the plaintiff for instituting the pre-suit meditation would be irrelevant if the defendant refuses to participate to take part in the proceedings.
The Court held that the only requirement for the plaintiff is to institute the mediation and the consequent Non-Starter Report with an observation that both the parties are not interested in pursing the mediation would not mean that the requirement of Section 12-A is not satisfied.
Title: FUTURE COUPONS PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS. v. AMAZON.COM NV INVESTMENT HOLDINGS LLC & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1096
The Delhi High Court has dismissed the pleas moved by Future Group challenging an order passed by Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) rejecting its plea seeking termination of the arbitration proceedings with e-commerce giant Amazon.
Justice C Hari Shankar clarified that the court had not expressed any opinion on merits and controversy between the parties. The court said that the arbitration proceedings may continue uninfluenced by any of the findings.
The court observed that mere fact that there is no statutory provision under which the aggrieved litigant can challenge the interim award of the Arbitral Tribunal, is not sufficient to regard the litigant as remediless against the same.
Case Title: M/s Hetampuria Tax Fab versus M/s Daksh Enterprises
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1097
The Delhi High Court has ruled that unilaterally including a clause in the Delivery Challan would not constitute an arbitration agreement between the parties merely because the opposite party had accepted the delivery of goods and had signed the Delivery Challan certifying the acceptance of goods.
The bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Amit Mahajan held that in order to constitute an arbitration agreement, there must be a consensus between the parties. Therefore, the Court ruled that an arbitration agreement cannot come into existence by a party unilaterally issuing a Delivery Challan and the opposite party accepting delivery of the goods.
Title: JOSHINI TULI v. STATE OF (NCT) OF DELHI & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1098
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation seeking transfer of probe in the Shraddha Walkar murder case from Delhi Police to Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The court also said it will impose a cost on the petitioner.
A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad said the case filed by a lawyer is nothing more than a "publicity interest litigation".
The court also orally remarked that the petitioner was a stranger to the matter and had filed the PIL "for obvious reasons."
Physical verification of business premises; GST dept failed to issue notice : Delhi High Court
Case Title: Bimal Kothari Versus Assistant Commissioner
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1099
The Delhi High Court has held that the GST department failed to issue the notice to the person who must be present at the time of physical verification of business premises.
The division bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju has observed that the verification report, though generated, has not been uploaded, as required, in Form GST REG-30 on the common portal.
Title: SACHIN AND OTHERS v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1100
Upholding the regulation issued by National Medical Commission (NMC) limiting the number of attempts for candidates to pass their first year (first professional examination) in MBBS course to four, the Delhi High Court has said that there cannot be a right to attempt an examination any number of times.
A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad dismissed a batch of pleas filed by candidates who had exhausted the limit but still could not succeed.
In light of the said regulation, the candidates were prohibited from writing the exams again. The candidates thus sought another chance on the ground that they had suffered immensely during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Case Title: Hero Fincorp. Limited versus Techno Trexim (I) Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1101
The Delhi High Court has reiterated that arbitration proceedings and proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interests Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) can go hand in hand.
The single bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao held that even if a party intended to take action under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act by filing a petition before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT), to challenge the action taken by the secured creditor under Section 13 (4) of the SARFAESI, that would not bar the initiation of arbitration proceedings by the secured creditor.
Delhi High Court Quashes Assessment Order Passed Without Issuing Draft Assessment Order
Case Title: RMSI Private Limited Versus NaFAC
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1102
The Delhi High Court has quashed the assessment order passed without issuing a show cause notice or a draft assessment order which has been mandated under Section 144B(1)(xvi)(b) of the Income Tax Act.
The division bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Navin Chawla has directed the department to issue a show-cause notice within four weeks.
Title: Hans Raj Jain v. PMO
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1103
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a plea against an order passed by Chief Information Commission (CIC) refusing to impose penalty on a CPIO for providing belated information in response to an RTI application related to auction of a suit of Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
Calling the plea moved by one Hans Raj Jain as misconceived, Justice Yashwant Varma observed that the petitioner failed to establish a case which would have warranted the CIC to impose the penalty.
Title: DINESH KUMAR v. GOVERNMENT OF NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1104
The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi Government to pay over Rs. 16 lakhs to a senior judicial officer, who is an Additional District Judge in Saket Courts, as reimbursement for the expenses incurred by him for his COVID-19 treatment last year.
ADJ Dinesh Kumar was admitted in the city's PSRI Hospital between April 22 to June 7, 2021 after contracting COVID-19 during the second wave. He remained there on a ventilator for three weeks. While he had to pay Rs. 24,02,380 to the hospital, the government reimbursed only Rs.7,08,500 on the ground that the hospital had ignored the charges fixed by it for treatment of patients suffering from COVID-19.
Title: AJIT KUMAR v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1105
Emphasizing that judicial strictures need to be passed with utmost circumspection, the Delhi High Court on Tuesday observed that such orders are bound to have an "everlasting affect" on the reputation of the person against whom such remarks are made.
Observing that every word forming part of a judicial order forms a permanent record, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said that judicial restraint as warranted by law and judicial proceedings is one of the qualities of a judicial officer.
'Caesar's Wife Must Be Above Suspicion': Delhi High Court Upholds Dismissal Of RBI Employee
Title: VIJAY KUMAR GUPTA v. RESERVE BANK OF INDIA & ORS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1106
Referring to the famous phrase - Caesar's wife must be above suspicion, the Delhi High Court has upheld the dismissal of an employee of Reserve Bank of India (RBI) who was accused of pilfering cancelled notes in 2005.
Justice Chandra Dhari Singh observed that a bank employee or an officer must perform the duty with absolute devotion, diligence, integrity and honesty, so that the confidence of the public or depositors is not lost in the bank.
"As goes the popular saying – "Caesar's wife must be above suspicion". It is settled law that honesty of integrity of employees/officers working in the banks who are dealing with public money must be paramount," the court said.
Title: STATE v. MOHD. JAVED NASIR & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1107
The Delhi High Court has said a victim's statement under Section 164 CrPC disclosing the offence of rape shall be sufficient to frame charges against the accused under section 376 of Indian Penal Code.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said an accused should not merely be discharged in a rape case because the prosecutrix has not stated about the same in her FIR or during MLC.
"This is so because in offences like rape where only the victim is the witness in majority of the cases, the statement made by victim should be looked at from a considerate and liberal perspective at the time of framing charges. A statement made under Section 164 Cr.P.C. disclosing the offence of rape shall be sufficient to frame charges under Section 376 of IPC," the court said.
Title: Tahir Hussain v. ED
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1108
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a plea filed by former Aam Aadmi Party Councillor Tahir Hussain challenging charges framed against him in a money laundering case registered in connection with the North East Delhi riots of 2020.
Justice Anu Malhotra observed that the alleged commission of a conspiracy "even for the purpose of GST violation in order to avail money" through criminal conspiracy for using proceeds of crime to commit 2020 riots and to cause unrest, prima facie falls within the ambit of commission of a scheduled offence under PMLA.
"Apparently thus, the agreement to enter into an agreement to commit a crime, falls within the ambit of Section 120A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 falling thus, within the ambit of a scheduled offence," the court added.
Rights Under An Agreement Are Superseded By A Subsequent One? Arbitrator To Decide: Delhi High Court
Case Title: PVR Limited versus Imperia Wishfield Private Limited
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1109
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the arbitration clause relates to the resolution of disputes between the parties and not the performance of the contract and thus, the arbitration agreement survives even if the contract comes to an end.
The single bench of Justice Mini Pushkarna held that the issue whether the rights of parties under an agreement are superseded by a subsequent agreement or not, is itself an arbitrable issue which can be examined by the arbitrator. The Court ruled that the question whether an agreement containing an arbitration clause has been novated by another agreement, cannot be adjudicated at the time of considering a petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) seeking appointment of an arbitrator.
Delhi High Court Grants Bail To Yes Bank's Former MD Rana Kapoor In Money Laundering Case
Title: Rana Kapoor v. ED
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1110
The Delhi High Court on Friday granted bail to Yes Bank co-founder Rana Kapoor in a money laundering case being probed by Enforcement Directorate with regard to the alleged wrongful loss of around Rs 466.51 Crores to the bank.
Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain allowed the bail plea filed by Rana.
An ECIR was registered against Gautam Thapar, M/s. Avantha Realty Ltd., M/s. Oyster Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. and others, alleging criminal breach of trust, cheating, criminal conspiracy and forgery for diversion and misappropriation of public money during the period 2017 to 2019, thereby causing losses to the tune of Rs. 466.51 Crores to Yes Bank.
Title: AMITABH BACHCHAN v. RAJAT NAGI & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1111
The Delhi High Court has granted ad interim ex parte injunction in favour of veteran actor Amitabh Bachchan in a suit filed by him for protection of his publicity rights against the fake Kaun Banega Crorepati (KBC) lottery scam and other online frauds where his photo and voice are being misused to deceive the public.
Justice Navin Chawla observed that a prima facie case was made out in favour of the actor and against the defendants, who are various individuals and entities, allegedly violating Bachchan's personality rights.
"….I am of the opinion that the plaintiff has been able to make out a prima facie case in his favour. The balance of convenience also lies in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants," the court said.
High Court Directs Delhi Govt To Ensure Strict Compliance Of Anti-Manual Scavenging Law
Title: HARNAM SINGH v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1112
The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi Government to ensure strict compliance of statutory provisions contained in Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and their Rehabilitation Act, 2013 Act and the Rules framed under the enactment.
A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad also directed the Delhi government to keep in mind various recommendations submitted by the Delhi Commission for Safai Karamcharis (DCSK) from time to time and take a decision within 60 days of any such recommendation being made.
The court passed the direction while disposing of a public interest litigation moved by Harnam Singh, a social activist and former Chairman of DCSK, raising concern in respect of conditions and facilities provided to various sanitation workers in the national capital.
Title: GUJARAT COOPERATIVE MILK MARKETING FEDERATION LTD & ANR. vs SUJAY KUMAR & ORS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1113
In a case filed by Amul for removal of the "defamatory content" targeting it on social media and video-sharing site Youtube, Google LLC has told the Delhi High Court that it cannot disclose the Basic Subscriber Information (BSI) of a Youtube user whose details are stored with Google Ireland.
With Google Ireland also refusing to disclose the information without following "of a legal process through Irish Courts or by way of a Letters Rogatory through the Government", the high court has sought a response from the union government on the issue.
Justice Prathiba M. Singh in the order dated November 21 asked a counsel representing the Centre to obtain instructions regarding existence of any 'Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty' between India and Ireland, and also regarding any recent developments on data protection laws in India.
Title: Michelle Camilleri & Anr. v. Central Adoption Resource Authority & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1114
Paving way for an inter country adoption by a foreign couple, the Delhi High Court on Friday directed the authorities to expeditiously conclude all legal formalities relating to adoption of a minor child with special needs, who was found abandoned in October 2019 in a cremation ground.
Justice Yashwant Varma observed that the child must be placed in the warmth of a loving family and a home enabling her to find her place in the world in the years to come.
"It is important to bear in mind that the bonds of family are not forged merely by blood but bonded by the love and care that we extend to those around us. The Court shudders at even imagining the first waking hours of Child "S" as she entered this world. Her fate thus cannot be left to the vagaries of litigation or to competing forces which seek to stake a claim upon her very existence and life, her body and soul. The Court notes that the process of adoption has stretched over three years already," the court said.
Title: DS CONFECTIONERY PRODUCTS LIMITED vs NIRMALA GUPTA AND ANR
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1115
The Delhi High Court has passed a permanent injunction restraining a manufacturer from selling fruit candies with names like Pelse or Plus++ after the Dharampal Satyapal Group, which produces the famous Pulse Candy, in a suit said that such adoption of similar names by the defendants amounts to infringement.
Justice Navin Chawla also held the plaintiff DS Confectionery Products Limited entitled to damages of a sum of Rs. 2,00,000. The court said the trade marks adopted by the defendants are deceptively similar to that of the plaintiff.
"Mere addition of the sign "++" or deletion of the alphabet "E" from the mark of the plaintiff, in my opinion, is not sufficient to bring about a distinction in the two marks, as the same would remain phonetically similar. Similarly, replacement of the alphabet "U" by "E" in the mark PELSE by the defendants would also not bring about sufficient distinction between the mark of the plaintiff and the defendants to answer the test of deceptive similarity of the two marks," said the court.
Case Title: MOHAN PRASAD (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LRS SH. YOGESH & ORS. v. EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1116
The Delhi High Court has issued a slew of directions for improvement of infrastructure and filling up of vacancies in State and district consumer forums.
Noting that a total of 24 posts for various categories are vacant in the district forums, Justice Pratibha M Singh directed that the same be filled up within a period of four weeks after the lifting of Model Code of Conduct in Delhi, where municipal elections are scheduled.
The court said the stenographers, who are well-versed in English language, be posted at the district forums as well as State Commission within two weeks, adding that thereafter the currently working Hindi stenographers shall be repatriated.
"It is also made clear that in future, it shall be ensured that the stenographers who are posted in the DCDRCs and State Commission, shall be those who are duly qualified in English shorthand and typing, so that the work of such fora is not impeded in any manner," the court said.
POCSO Act | Sexual Harassment Of A Child Is A Cognizable And Non-Bailable Offence: Delhi High Court
Title: R.K. TARUN v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1117
The Delhi High Court has ruled that sexual harassment of a child, which is punishable under Section 12 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, is a cognizable and non-bailable offence.
A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad said that the offence would fall within the scope of the second category of Part II of Schedule I of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The said category states that if the offence is punishable with imprisonment of three years and upwards but not more than seven years, then it will be a cognizable and non-bailable offence and will be triable by a judicial magistrate of first class.
Title: Jagran Prakashan Limited vs Telegram FZ LLC & Ors
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1118
The Delhi High Court has directed the instant messaging app Telegram to comply with a 2020 order directing it to disclose the basic subscriber information of the users who unauthorisedly upload and share ePaper of Dainik Jagran newspaper in PDF in their channels.
Justice Navin Chawla took note of the submission that the issue regarding disclosure of identity of users by Telegram is no longer res integra and has been settled by a co-ordinate bench in Neetu Singh and Another v. Telegram FZ LLC and Others.
"In view of the above, the defendant no.1 shall comply with the direction issued by this Court vide order dated 29.05.2020 within a period of three weeks from today. The information may be disclosed by the defendant no. 1 in a sealed cover," Justice Chawla said in the order dated November 23.
Title: ATEET BANSAL v. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, DELHI & ANR
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1119
The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi Police to ensure that all steps are taken to prevent prostitution rings from being operated "under the garb of massage parlours".
A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad disposed of a public interest litigation filed by one Ateet Bansal against the operation of "sex rackets or illegal flesh trade" in the national capital.
Bansal argued that sex racket businesses operating under the garb of massage parlours pose a serious threat to the safety and dignity of women. He submitted that authorities have failed to act on his complaints.
The bench took note of the Delhi Police's affidavit stating that necessary action is taken whenever an information or complaint is received regarding prostitution rackets operating under the garb of massage parlours.
Title: AMAZON SELLER SERVICES PVT LTD vs DISH TV INDIA LTD & ANR
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1120
Upholding an interim order of the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal, the Delhi High Court on Friday ruled that Prasar Bharti cannot encrypt the contents of DD Sports as long as it remains in the list of Free-to-air channels which are required to be compulsorily carried by all cable operators.
Justice Yashwant Varma said DD Sports has been made FTA by the government in exercise of powers conferred by Cable Television Network (Regulation) Act, 1995 and it continues to remain included in the notification dated September 06, 2013.
"Thus, even if the content in question be one which was acquired by Prasar Bharati under Section 12(3)(c) of the [Prasar Bharati (Broadcasting Corporation of India) Act]1990 Act, as long as the same is aired on the DD Sports platform, it would be subject to the power that the Union Government may exercise under Section 8 of the 1995 Act," said the court.
Title: EMEKA EMMANUEL vs THE STATE
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1121
Granting bail to a Nigerian in a drugs case after nearly four years of custody, the Delhi High Court has said that any recovery made without compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act "itself cannot be sustained" and no reliance can be placed on it.
"Since the mandatory requirement of Section 50 of the NDPS Act has not been met in the first instance, the recovery itself is under doubt. Any recovery made without compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act itself cannot be sustained," said Justice Jasmeet Singh in the order.
The court further said since the "fountainhead of the recovery" itself is missing, "I am of the view that no reliance can be placed on the recovery made from the applicant".
"The Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court has clearly opined that in case Section 50 of the NDPS Act is not complied with, the applicant is entitled to bail," Justice Singh said.
DTVSV Act Is A Remedial Statute; Neither A Taxing Statute Nor Amnesty Act: Delhi High Court
Title: MUFG Bank Versus CIT
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1122
The Delhi High Court has held that the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 (DTVSV Act) is neither a taxing statute nor an amnesty act. It is a remedial or beneficial statute.
The division bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora has observed that any ambiguity in a taxing statute ensures the benefit of the assessee, but any ambiguity in the amnesty act or exemption clause in an exemption notification has to be construed in favor of the revenue. The amnesty or exemption has to be given only to those assesses who demonstrate that they satisfy all the conditions precedent for availing of the amnesty or exemption.
Title: GUNEET BHASIN v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. & ORS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1123
The Delhi High Court has held that any infirmity in the cheque return memo does not render the entire trial under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act as nullity.
Observing that cheque return memo is a memo informing the payee and its banker about the dishonour of a cheque, Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain said if the said cheque return memo is not bearing any official stamp of the bank, it does not render the same as invalid or illegal.
Title: HARDEEP SINGH v. THE STATE
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1124
The Delhi High Court has said that the question whether non-compliance of Section 41 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 in the process of arrest, search and seizure vitiates the trial is to be seen at the stage of trial and cannot have any bearing on grant of bail.
The court said though the authorities cannot ignore statutory rigours of the provisions especially when it causes serious prejudice to the accused, the apex court in Karnail Singh v. State of Haryana has said the provision of Section 41 is a discretionary measure. The Supreme Court in the 2009 ruling had said "these provisions should be taken as a discretionary measure which should check the misuse of the Act rather than providing an escape to the hardened drug peddlers."
Justice Jasmeet Singh further observed that non-compliance of Section 41 of the enactment will not absolve the accused from the rigours of Section 37, which imposes strict conditions on grant of bail.
Case Title: Ravinder Kumar Aggarwal versus Income Tax Officer
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1125
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the order passed by NCLT under Section 252(3) of the Companies Act, 2013, directing restoration of a struck off company, will have the effect of placing the company in the same position as if the name of the company had not been struck off from the register of companies. Thus, the Court held that the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 issued against a Company on the date it stood dissolved as a consequence of being struck off, was valid in view of the subsequent order passed by the NCLT.
The bench of Justices Manmohan and Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora noted that the continuing liability of a struck-off Company envisaged under Section 250, is in addition to Section 248(7) of the Companies Act, which provides that the liability of every director or manager of a company dissolved as a result of being struck off, shall continue and may be enforced as if the company had not been dissolved.
Title: PARLE PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED vs BRITANNIA INDUSTRIES LTD
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1126
The Delhi High Court has referred Parle Products Private Limited and Britannia Industries to its Mediation and Conciliation Centre for resolution of the dispute over alleged disparaging advertisements of Britannia Milk Bikis against Parle-G biscuits.
Justice Prathiba M. Singh directed that while the settlement is explored between the parties, the two print advertisements of Britannia shall not be re-published.
The court said a perusal of the two print advertisements clearly shows that the use of the terms such as 'G-NAHI', 'Adhura poshan' clearly make a reference to Parle-G biscuits.
Title: RK vs State
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1127
In a case dating back to 1999, the Delhi High Court has set aside the life sentence of a murder convict after he took the plea of juvenility during the pendency of his appeal. The ossification test revealed that his age was between 10 to 20 years old on the day of incident.
"Considering the fact that the upper age limit cannot be taken to the detriment of the appellant and as per the lower limit, the appellant was a minor at the time of alleged incident, he is entitled to the benefit of juvenility. The appellant was convicted for offences punishable under Sections 302/452 IPC as noted above. Maintaining the conviction of the appellant for the said offences, which is not being challenged on merits before this Court, the order on sentence is set aside," said the court.
Delhi High Court Directs Delhi Police To Handover Keys Of Markaz Nizamuddin To Maulana Saad
Title: DELHI WAQF BOARD THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN vs GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1128
Rejecting Delhi Police's stand regarding the continuing restrictions at Tablighi Jamaat headquarter in Nizamuddin since March 2020, the Delhi High Court on Monday asked the police to handover the keys of Markaz Nizamuddin to Maulana Saad.
In March this year, the court had permitted holding of prayers on five floors of the mosque during the month of Ramzan. In May, the high court permitted the mosque management to allow public entry beyond the month of Ramzan, for the first time since March 2020. The relief was limited to offering of prayers. However, the attached madrasa and hostel continued to remain closed.
Justice Jasmeet Singh on Monday said that the keys would have to be handed over to the person from whom they were taken. "You have taken the possession from some person. You return the possession to that person. I am not adjudicating an FIR for title of property, that is not issue before me," said the court.
Title: MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS vs ASMITA SACHIN WAMAN
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1129
The Delhi High Court has set aside an order of the Central Information Commission by which the Ministry of External Affairs had been directed to disclose under the RTI Act the details relating to the passport and marriage certificate, address proof, ID proof and other related documents of an estranged husband to his wife.
Justice Yashwant Varma said the the question related to the disclosures under RTI Act with respect to a passport or any other personal identification document of a third party is no longer res integra.
Case Title: Sporta Technologies Pvt. Ltd. and Another v. Virat Saxena
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1130
The Delhi High Court recently passed a summary judgment in favour of the Dream11 parent company Sporta Technologies Private Limited against a person who was operating the domain name 'www.dream11.bet' allegedly as a gambling website.
Justice Navin Chawla said the plaintiffs have been able to prove that they are the registered proprietor of the 'Dream11 Marks' and that the domain name adopted by the defendant is deceptively similar to that of the plaintiffs and is clearly intended to ride on the goodwill and reputation of their marks.
Title: NEETU SINGH vs TELEGRAM FZ LLC
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1131
Complying with the August 30 ruling that held that courts in India can direct a messaging app to disclose the information of infringers, Telegram has disclosed the admin names, phone numbers and IP Addresses of the channels which are accused of unauthorised sharing of the study material prepared by Campus Private Limited and its teacher Neetu Singh for various competitive examinations.
Justice Prathiba M. Singh in the order dated November 24 said the names of admins, the phone numbers and IP addresses of some of the channels as are available with Telegram have been supplied.
"Let copy of the said data be supplied to ld. Counsel for Plaintiffs with the clear direction that neither the Plaintiffs nor their counsel shall disclose the said data to any third party, except for the purposes of the present proceedings. To this end, disclosure to the governmental authorities/police is permissible," said the court.
Title: ITC LIMITED vs CENTRAL PARK ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1132
The Delhi High Court has declared ITC Limited's 'Bukhara' as a well known trademark under Section 2(zg) read with Section 11(2) of the Trade Marks Act and directed the Registrar to add it to the list of well-known trademarks upon completion of requisite formalities.
Justice Prathiba M. Singh in the judgment said that certain trademarks or names attaining the status of well-known marks have been acknowledged and recognised by courts in India for the last two-three decades.
"Illustratively, marks such as 'APPLE', 'WHIRLPOOL', 'BENZ' etc., have been recognised as 'well-known' marks even before the said marks were actually used on a commercial scale in India. The said concept of according recognition for 'well-known' marks was finally incorporated statutorily in the Trade Marks Act, 1999, thus strengthening the recognition granted to such mark," Justice Singh said.
Title: SHISHRAM AS GUARDIAN OF MR. KAWAL vs BAL BHAVAN INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1133
Observing that career guidance of students in Class XI and XII is crucial, the Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi government to consider having a system for career counselling of the students to ensure that an informed decision is taken by them regarding their subject choices
Justice Sanjeev Narula in a ruling observed that it is essential that students are counselled in the decision-making process, and asked the authorities to step-in to ensure that there is an appropriate system of counselling or career guidance programmes in schools to assist students.
"If students are made aware of admission policies of different universities, it could only help them in making an informed decision regarding their subject choices. Mr. Unmukt Gera, counsel for GNCTD, states that such systems must be in place, although he is unable to readily cite the same. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to GNCTD/ DoE to examine this issue in consultation with experts in the field and in case, any lacunae is required to be filled-in, they may do so by issuing appropriate directions to schools," the court said.
Title: Javed vs State NCT Of Delhi
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1134
Reiterating that a minor's consent is immaterial in the eyes of law, the Delhi High Court recently denied bail to a 23-year-old man in a POCSO case, who is accused of allegedly raping a 16-year-old minor, observing that his age and the fact that he was already married, disentitle him from getting bail.
Justice Jasmeet Singh also took note of the submission that the accused had got date of birth of the complainant changed in the Aadhaar card to show her as major.
"The conduct of the applicant of getting the date of birth changed in the Aadhar card of the complainant is a serious offence. It seems that the applicant wanted to take advantage by getting the Date of Birth on the Aadhar Card changed so that when the applicant established physical relationship with the complainant, she was not a minor," the court said.